entropy47

A visual for anyone else wondering:

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Tf2UyZUq7HHao7LJv3fANo-970...

What about the reason of "followers can read it in their feed without navigating away to a separate domain"?

I wish YouTube Music did this :(

Ideas for other analysis;

Songs that over or under index when sliced by some other dimension. Weather? Morning vs evening? Weekday vs weekend? Summer vs winter?

Songs you never finish vs songs you always finish.

Songs you don't like from albums you do.

One hit wonders (within your personal taste)

Songs you've played 10+ times but haven't heard in over three years

If you had this data at scale: favourite songs from people who enjoy similar niches to you (it's me! Listen to Televators by TMV).

The original title is, in fact, the very first thing in the document. Twice!

The picture I was looking for in the article! Thanks.

Yes. I think my core thesis is that if noise and pollution upsets you, then I would spend less time complaining about a niche hobby that barely effects anybody, and a lot more time getting annoyed about really common hobbies, business patterns and lifestyle choices that are destroying the planet.

And I think the obvious counter is "that's whataboutism, you can care about lots of things at once" but I personally am pretty fatigued with just causes, so when I see people complaining about hobby aviation in ultralights I just see it as a distraction that pulls time, focus and attention from bigger problems.

All of this is, of course, completely subjective. But that was the intent behind the comment.

> creating a bunch of noise and emissions just so they can have fun

Wait until you hear about parents!

I haven't actually done the maths but I expect an ultralight is comparable to a car hobbyist in both noise and emissions. Agree that flying a jet liner for fun would be a dick move.

I worry about catastrophic data loss. Even at Google scale you hear stories of things going wrong and they have to resort to off-site offline storage; for stuff like photos of my kids, I just don't trust myself, the SW provider, hardware etc to sufficiently insulate me from something crazy going wrong. It only needs to happen once.

I think you can get lossless for the first 15 (?) GB for free.

Can you add more detail on the year table at the very bottom / how you're meant to use it? I can memorise it but I'm not sure how you're meant to use it after that.

I found this much harder to read than the average blog post (the "I mean" was where I realized I was in for a stream-of-consciousness post). You can get away without paragraphs too, but I don't think "you can parse a language without it" makes a thing redundant.

I get it for comments or social media statuses, but if you're writing long form text you want somebody over 30 to read, reaching over to the shift key is probably worth it. This was a good read but it was annoying, like a nice book transcribed into Comic Sans.

I spend a lot of time worrying (probably correctly) that product managers don't add any value in big tech, and then I read an idea like this - novel, clever, and basically guaranteed to die after seven months with 80 users - and I think yep, my role in the team is to argue against the brilliant but ultimately doomed Proper Solution To The Problem.

I look forward to seeing this on /r/agedlikemilk in 2 years when KonsoloSearch buys Google.

We know each other! He's a friend from work.

I don't think I'm going to be able to change your mind, but chatting to some more Stanford grads might. Not everybody is the stereotype. I'm sorry you've had such a bad experience.

Just for the record, I studied at a very unprestigious journalism school in Australia. But I work with many Stanford grads and in a company with it's fair share of assholes, they have all been lovely.

I can't think of any other reason somebody might name an innovation focused business "Pioneer". Must be a nod to eugenics.

There are certainly narcissists at Stanford (and any other prestigious institution) but this desperate need to write off thousands of intelligent people based on some kind of imagined persecution is pretty weird to me.

> I never understood devs that do this

Succeed? Have a personality?

I can't work out how this could actually work (if your smart color changing lights are just paired with regular switches).

1. It's midday, your lights are bright and blue 2. You turn the switch off. The bulb (and ESP) no longer has power. 3. It's 9pm; you turn the light on.

Would you not get bright blue light for a second or two until it had a chance to sync? You can get timely local execution with something like Tasmota but it has no consistent internal clock, so you're at least one network hop away from it taking proper state.

This chain is pretty wild to me. I don't know if I'm just too pragmatic, too close to people whose lives have been ruined by drugs, or too much of a big tech apologist - but it seems impossible to me to draw any parallel between drug dealing and working at Google. And I'm just talking ethically - to say nothing of legally.

Maybe I'm a consequentialist and you're more of a deontologist? I see a big distinction between "I lost my money, my home and eventually my life" and "I feel my privacy has been infringed on at a conceptual level in the pursuit of ad sales". Do you think there are Google products out there that are actually harmful and ruining people's lives in a concrete way? I would love to hear about how, if yes.

The other interpretation is you have a much higher estimation of drug dealers than I do. No dramas with people dealing pot or pills, I'm talking meth and heroin.

What else do you think it would be used for? Are we talking about another capitalism pursuit, or do you think there's something darker going on?

What about Google do you think makes working there comparable to pushing drugs? Legitimately curious.

> The U.S. legal system, i.e. government

I agree with your overall point, but these two things are not the same.

The law and commentary (at least in Australia) talks about monopoly a lot, you're right. I just don't think it has the same meaning in IP (which is concerned with implementations) as it does in common usage (which is concerned with markets). If IP was done properly (it isn't) Qualcomm wouldn't have a monopoly on cell phone chips - they'd have a monopoly on one specific, non obvious way of doing chips that they had developed (and they'd only have it for a fixed time window).

It's semantics but I think the word monopoly is both sensitive and overloaded. This is actually a discussion we had during my law degree, but obviously different countries have different particulars and the point I'm trying to make here is more philosophical than legal.

Friday afternoon and Monday morning are already pretty ineffective - the length of the weekend might not impact the existence of those bookend periods.

I suspect it gets worse around public holidays because that's a break from routine.

Agree completely. The base idea might have some merit but the way it's been deployed is atrocious.

I suppose it depends on how you define monopoly. A patent protects a (theoretically, non obvious) solution to a problem that you came up with. Other people can still work on that problem, they just need to come up with their own solutions.

You wouldn't say copyright gives an artist a monopoly on any particular type of creativity and - if patents worked properly, which they don't - I like to picture a similar outcome.

I don't think patents were designed to create monopolies so much as they were created to incentive research. It sucks to go through a lot of expensive R&D that leads to a simple implementation if other people can just copy that and enjoy a huge second mover advantage.

Don't get me wrong, the end effect of patents has been nightmarish (I think mainly because the courts are so out of touch with technology). But I don't think the actual intent behind them is necessary evil or anticompetitive.

I'm a nobody and even I have had run-ins with certain people on the project. I think they have a similar problem to many hugely popular FOSS authors - you spend 99.99% of the day explaining things to idiots who don't get why things are the way they are, so when the 0.01% of useful, constructive issues float past they get written off by habit.

I personally think some of their leaders also have an over-reliance on gut reaction - have never once seen them admit to being wrong, even on multi year issues where context has changed. I think a useful litmus test for anybody in a position of power is "when did I last change my mind". If the answer is "never", either you're perfect or you need to think about how you've been making decisions.

> Do we need car control?

We have car control. Operating a vehicle requires a licence, training, registry and regular checks. Unlike owning a gun, which is inconceivable to everybody in the rest of the world.

Obviously there is criminal intent under all this but guns unequivocally amplify the impact. It's very hard to kill 25 people with a backpack of knives - this isn't a weekly occurrence, like shootings. You can't drive a truck down the corridors of a school.

I honestly don't know why we argue about this. Is there anything anybody could say that would change your mind?