cmsonger

> On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech - whether or not we agree with them? We talk about net neutrality, but shouldn't we apply the same standard to hosts like AWS?

I think it's fine to be concerned about the principle while in agreement on this use. Both things can be true.

And FWIW, that's the state in which I find myself. The president used Twitter to promote lies about the election that were consumed by his followers who then used social media to plan and execute violence in the US capitol. When that same cycle threatened to repeat, these companies stepped in. Good for them, what was their other choice?

But appropriate action in this case does not mean that the process and standards used are OK in the arbitrary case and completely agree that lack of legislative standards is the problem. The tech companies had not good choices here because as a society we've not yet set any reasonable rules.

"Privacy Zuckering" made me laugh. It's funny because it's true.

> I would genuinely like to know why you are so confident about what claims are and aren’t baseless.

Because he continues to lose in court time and time again, often to judges that were appointed during his administration and yet the rhetoric and allegations continue at the same pace.

IMO, anti-trust laws should punish this.

> Mission focus produces social good: Working in a single direction on a strong, well-considered mission is the best way to make a socially positive impact.

Facebook seems like the obvious counter example to this.

The whole statement seems to be: "Trust the business, we know it's going to be good. Ignore the larger societal issues we might be causing."

I had no idea what this was or why it was posted.

This gave at least some context:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FZaDFYbnRoHmde7F6/stuck-in-t...

I understand the points of praise, but let me offer a counter argument. Companies have an obligation to defend the system that provided the environment in which they were formed and flourished.

This election is a bit different than normal. I've never seen a sitting president that would not commit to the peaceful transfer of power. You really think that coinbase would be where it is if we had that for the last 50 year? You think silicon valley would be silicon valley?

I don't.

All people deserve respect. Not all opinions do.

It's worth noting the swift evolution of tooling in support of this under the current pressures.

I somehow did not ferret out from the Forbes article: Is this correlated or causal?

+1 came here to say this.

Indoor HVAC air flows seem way more important than distance. I can probably sit right next to you as long as the airflow has each of our exhalations taken away from the other.

My employer has mentioned potential plans to bring people back to the office in small numbers for short times. Until these discussions include analysis of building HVAC, I want no part of it.

> The western economic system cannot deal with lockdowns, and more generally, any kind of stop-the-world scenarios.

I kind of disagree, though it may just be a diction issue.

I think it's the western political system and freedoms that can't enforce a lock down rather than the economic system. Countries that have aggressively locked down early, enforced that lockdown, and instituted privacy invasive tracing apps have been able to virtually eliminate the virus from within their borders.

Compare that to the US, for example, where people are insisting on their rights to not wear a mask for purposes of protecting others. It's less about economy and more about individual freedoms and lack of state power to enforce lockdowns.

I'm not sure. I come here to read about technology and technology related issues. There is some overlap -- specifically, I think Twitter's choice to start policing misinformation from POTUS is good. But I don't feel like the protests are technology related.

> One can’t help but wonder if this’ll push for more permanently remote positions.

I think that's right. Currently these companies are learning to effectively remote work under the duress of COVID-19. How long until they start to ask themselves "what do I do with all this expensive office space." Returning to pre-COVID-19 life requires a vaccine, of which there is no guarantee. But a path forward with dramatically reduced office space requirements will look sure -- and offer value to employees who like the flexibility.

There are some really good reasons to want to have an office and face to face interactions; but right now they all look pretty fragile.

I seek (or sought) eye contact. When I first joined it was crazy how much walking through the halls and around the desks people avoided eye contact.

Then I figured out it was because you saw them too much. There are so many times a day you can look at and say hello to co-workers without it just being weird.

For the first time in a VERY long career, I joined Google a few years ago, which is an open office company.

The thing I noticed in the first week: Everyone avoided eye contact all the time. The thing I noted after six months: I'd learned to avoid eye contact at all times.

So I'm kind of not surprised. It was counter intuitive to me that open office was less social; but personal experience suggests that open office is less social.

I didn't intend to say that something is wrong with a company if its employees are not unionized.

I did intend to say that a union can be an effective tool in advocating for employees to an organization that is driven to maximize profit.

For profit companies are often rewarded for minimizing costs. Certainly one can envision that FB might view moderation teams as an expense rather than strategic investment.

Organized labor can be a good counter balance to that.

But aren't there ways to mitigate some of the issues of both? Might those ways incur costs to the company? Isn't the role of organized labor to advocate for the workers in areas where pure drive for profit would put workers lower priority?

I joined Google at the age of 50. Just send a resume. They are not trying to surprise you and want you to do your best. Consequently, not only do they tell you what to expect from the interview process, the recruiter will send you a PDF that talks through what to expect along with a reading list you can use to prepare. (For example: cracking the coding interview and CLRS are on it.)

That said, I just went in cold. If you've been coding and are current in one of the 3 big interview languages (C++/Java/Python), and if you still understand your undergraduate level algorithms course and the corresponding vocabulary, then you know what you need to know.

Side note: A thing that no one told me but that I had to figure out on my own is that your technical writing skills are one of the most important skills to doing well at google. It was unironically said to me that the highest reward/effort one can do at Google is to write documents. The person who said it was correct about that IMO.

It's hard to know how to answer without knowing more. I slack off when I don't love the work. Whereas when I am building something that I think is really cool, you can't keep me away from the keyboard. When I'm a cog in the machine, I struggle to do more than the 10% you are doing.

First question I'd ask myself would be: "Why do I think this would be better elsewhere?" Is the issue Google, or is the issue you/the profession?

Depending on the answer it seems like there are a few reasonable landing zones: 1) find a new job at google that addresses the perceived issues at google. 2) jump to a new job at a new company that addresses the perceived issues at google. 3) approach your current job with a new attitude to work harder and do more. maybe set your sights on next promo. 4) embrace your slacking, saving money to prepare for a career change.

> It’s really sad to see the anti-success rhetoric.

The title may be, but the article was not. Was a reasoned statement for why those folks bothered to build another search engine.

It maybe is obvious, or maybe it's controversial, but patients will never be put before profits by for profit corporations.

> If the voice interface is implemented locally then it's not a problem.

That's not really observable or enforceable by me though. A question I ask myself all the time before I say yes to some kind of "new data tracking" is: "How do I think company_x will behave in 10 years if their profitability is plummeting?" Because I think that paints the worst case for companies that so far have been good actors.

I guess the TLDR is: That's great, but I think that the solution is legal protections for users. Right now all the power is in the hands of the collecting organization.

My personal view is that the biggest issue here is the lack of user protection. I'd be a LOT less concerned about this if the appropriate legal framework protected me.

The Star Trek vision of voice as an interface is a good vision. The question is how the regulatory framework protects users in this world and keeps it from being the dystopian nightmare that our "for profit corporations get to do whatever they like as long as you agreed in an 'all or nothing' click through" seem to be headed for.

> While we stand by one’s right to express individual thoughts and opinions, players and other participants that elect to participate in our esports competitions must abide by the official competition rules.

Laff.

> 0-60 is pretty useless

I completely disagree. Quarter mile times with terminal speed over 100 is useless. 10/10 at the limit adhesion differences are useless. 0-60 is useful almost every time you get in the car.

Nicest part about an EV? You pretty much get to choose your lane if you are first at the stop light. No making loud engine noises. Just floor the accelerator and choose what lane you want. That's the most practice performance metric out there in daily driving.

> than the new Tesla Roadster coming next year

I admire your optimism. I'll buy a 2020 roadster if it's anywhere close to what they describe and released any time soon; but I'm skeptical. (They also need to put a real steering wheel on it.) But I'm thinking it's not anywhere close to their top priority right now and that 2020 may end up being optimistic.

But if they get it out there, it's targeted right on top of the 911 Turbo. Same price, same 2+2 configuration, higher performance, similar utility. Will be interesting to see what happens here. Too bad Tesla is trying to go downmarket. If they were staying more up-market I'd feel more confidence in this car coming out on time.

They are all pretty dumb if you don't connect them to the network. :) I cable the TV's up to do software updates and then remove the cable and leave them unconnected. I handle streaming with a "less ad invasive" box.

> "There is no invasion of privacy at all, because there is no privacy,"

... and therefore one should seriously consider not using Facebook.

> Unfortunately, freedom includes the freedom to do dumb shit.

You are not legally free to do all dumb shit. For example, you are not free in many states to ride around without a seatbelt on. Car makers are not free to make cars without seatbelts.

That's the precedence.