curious_fella1

The actual quote is

"We’ve spent less than $1000 on hiring, but I’ve had coffees or breakfasts with probably hundreds of candidates. Measured by hours, recruiting is one of our largest investments"

You quoted that extremely disingenuously.

Yeah that timeline of ~40,000 years being responsible for the large majority of our complex behaviors sounds ridiculously short?

edit: That seems a little extreme and defeatist IMO.

I saw a Sherlock Holmes quote on here once, I liked it and I think it's relevant to your comment so I'll post it here.

"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."

But he did though...and there was no scandal then. Why now?

Who says their domination of search engines is dominant? Isn't Bing starting to gain some serious market share?

> and still winds up doing harder things than Americans more easily

Can you elaborate?

I would argue that these "social" parts of the internet are social in the shallowest sense of the world. E.g., telling people how your life is without actually talking to them. I would agree with above that these devices are adding to (creating?) our social isolation.

Yep, gave a voice to them and only them.

Couldn't they just add a condition that anyone who is reached out to for comment can't act on that information until the embargo has passed?

> No one is stealing from you, they are stealing from a supermarket

Yes, well they're stealing from someone, aren't they? But of course, it's ok if someone steals from the heartless grocery store owner, isn't it? I feel as if you would have a different opinion if anybody was allowed to walk into your house without your permission and ransack your fridge (and anything else they felt that they "need").

The moral problem with theft isn't that it is illegal. The problem is that one person expended their own personal resources to create the good. The person has spent their own time, money, and/or intelligence to create some good that now has value. The thief, who has expended zero effort to create nothing, takes the fruit of the producer's labor for no work, on the basis of his "need". What kind of society does this produce, where you can take things from others solely on your basis of need?

You seem to be making the cliche mistake of associating morality with need. I hope one day you don't need to learn this isn't always correlated...