freshfunk

Time to give up Google.

These worries are true for anything you install on Android. This is just another app, just presente differently.

If Facebook is ranking content such that that's all you see your feed, then Facebook as a whole would be less appealing anyway, let alone Home.

I'm guessing there's more to your feed than babies and food and that othe content is ranked higher due to your aversion of then.

Pretty much spot on for my experience with entrepreneurship.

The key to hiring females: Have a product that appeals to females. It doesn't seem like rocket science in this case.

I don't want to down play hiring female engineers or hiring for diversity. I think both of those are important.

I graduated from college over 10 years ago but the reality then was that females made up a very minor percentage of my computer science/engineering class. It must've been somewhere around 5% (definitely below 10%).

Of the ones I knew that started their careers in software engineering, many (if not most) left programming for other tangential careers. That is, they went to business school and then came back to the industry as product/program managers.

Is that bad or is that good? Should we encourage one over the other?

I imagine that, over time, the percentage of women who stay in engineering dwindles significantly. Considering that the initial percentages you are working with out of school is already small, think of how much you're limiting your application pool if you're looking for an experienced female software engineer. Most of the good ones are probably already working at the large tech companies since they do a good job of grabbing these women right out of school.

While we're talking about diversity, what about other forms of it? How many african-american/latino/native-american engineers do you see in Silicon Valley? Why don't we talk about this more? Isn't there value in diversity across ethnicities? Latinos are the fastest growing segment in America.

A good majority of that is in China where the govt has banned it.

Show me a service that's connected more people that hasn't been around for more than 20 years and not named "the Internet."

The greatest value FB brings is making it easier to connect and share (ie. be open) with others and 1B people derive enough value in that to come back on a regular basis. That's the point.

Wow that's pretty condescending.

Yes, it is a convenience... Much like email is a convenience over snail mail and Face Time is a convenience over meeting in person. Arguably the car is a "convenience" over the horse.

Discounting the breakthrough in technology that spawned the term "social networking" doesn't really help your position.

AOL may be a defunct company but in their hey day they brought millions of people online. They deserve more than your mockery.

If people didn't think FB was making things more open and connected, then why are they even on the site (and returning frequently)? It may not be YOUR narrow definition of open and connected but clearly they are deriving value from connecting and sharing with their friends and family.

1B people disagree with you.

"I no longer have to complain about the other sleazy, move-the-goalposts, amoral aspects of Facebook Instagram."

Yet here you are...

Of course ANYTHING is possible. The world could end tomorrow.

But show me one good example of a widely used Internet service that's owned by a public company that willingly cheated its users when it had the chance? Even Apple and Google have not done anything like that.

Also, the change in the TOS wasn't much different than it was before. They were just making it more clear as far as their intent to monetize by allowing your content to be sponsored.

The problem with your position is that its assuming that the company is trying to bait and switch you. It's not.

Google is no better or worse and thinking that they are is ignorance on your side that probably due to bias of media and the general tech community. Want to talk about bait and switch? What about Google Apps that used to be free for small businesses and is no longer? What about Gmail before ads? You can bet that its a matter of time before Google+ uses social ads and any location based service will use your location ads. Bait and switch?

It's ridiculous for you to complain that they didn't "express their intent to make money." Listen to yourself! Look at this site? It was a startup! Of course they want to make lone, as does every other for profit startup on Hacker News.

There's no deception. There's no unethical behavior.

Google benefits from serving content I've ceeated on its search engine by returning it as organic search result. Why am I not compensated?

Why does it not compensate sites like Wikipedia where their content and links are returned under their search engine?

Take a step back and remove your bias. No ones out to get you.

This is a perfect example of how ignorance can lead to fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's also an example of how erroneous media can easily mislead the public.

Instagram was never going to "sell your photos." If you read the TOS, they were reserving the right to advertise against your photos much like how sponsored stories work on Facebook.

But advertising is so evil right? Time to give up Google Search, Gmail, Google Maps, LinkedIn, New York Times, etc.

Frankly, I find it funny that your everyday consumer is in an uproar because they think that their kissy-face photos could even be sold.

Companies like National Geographic whose businesses are built on the IP around their photos have legitimate reasons to be concerned in general. In this case, though, these changes would've allowed them to advertise their magazine on Instagram. Professional photographers may also want to protect their content from being used in advertising.

But 99% of users are every day people taking pictures of babies, dogs and the sunset...content that would almost never be "sold."

Also, the fine print on AppData shows that their method of measuring users is completely prone to error. Many other apps showed a drop off and FB made some algo changes around the same time.

I thought people stopped writing Assembly a while ago but I recently interviewed at Apple and I interviewed with one group that deals with optimizations for vector mathematics using special hardware on the A4/A5 chips and he said they still write some code in Assembly because for performance reasons.

I grew up in la. My best advice for someone like you is to move to San Francisco. You'll be much happier here.

I'm guessing the author does not have a family.

I've been in both spots. I've quit to work on a startup full time making no money (luckily I had my wife to support me). At the time I didn't have kids. Now I have one kid (and another 2 on the way) and I'm going to work at a large stable company.

In my case, at least I tried. But I completely understand this other guy.

It's not just saying no to a pay check. For many people they are giving up money, healthcare, and stability. Perhaps people discount stability but stability is often needed for safety and happiness. Losing stability means stress and conflict. I know families that have been destroyed to these kind of stresses (eg. divorces that came about because the father nearly bankrupted the family).

So it's not just the paycheck, per se, but what the paycheck and stable job give.

With that said, I think people who've saved enough money and don't live outside their means can get to a point where they give themselves 6 months to 1 year to try something. Even if that's the case, in families it's not just one person's decision but should be both parents decision.

Unfortunately, that is probably not as common. People grow into their paychecks with mortgages, car payments, day care/tuition, vacations, home help, and so on.

I think that part of the issue here (that I haven't really seen mentioned) is that when you're so close to others who've been successful but you aren't as successful as them, then it's easy to feel like a failure of some sort.

In short, it's easy to feel like an ugly girl when you're standing next to the prettiest girl in class.

Dave seemed like something of a child prodigy. Like he said he didn't get an advanced degree. He was around people at PayPal who went on to create $1B+ companies. He's worked with Sean Parker. Those are achievements in themselves. But when you keep that kind of company and you haven't done what they did, it's easy to feel like you're lagging.

My old manager from my first job was one of the founders (and current CTO) at Gilt. One of my old college buddies who was also a coworker (under that same manager) went with him early on to build Gilt. Today I consider both of them incredibly successful. In comparison to them, they've achieved way more than I have.

This reminds me of an incident I had with a former employer. It was xmas break and I was at home the final week (xmas to new years). I spent about 75% of my time working.

When I got back I was accused of taking "10 days off." He counted the Saturday I left to the Sunday before I got back. By that logic, I often took 2 days off a week.

Anyway, even after I told him I was working during that time he still said "this wasn't the end of it." When I told him he was overly sensitive to face time he seemed to want to just deny reality.

I haven't used it but I'm guessing that the invites will be tightly integrated with email. The user experience will probably be something like invite users by email. Ones that have gmail/G+ can click through to further integration. Others will simply see an invite page (a la evite).

My thoughts exactly.

This is the killer app for Google Glasses. Get relevant information in your HUD throughout the day. Awesome.

This is one thing I've wondered wrt the current FB Apple app. I wonder if they pool/cache their UIWebViews or if they're instantiated each time.

Proof? Is it slower simply because they have to deliver more information (rendered UI in the form of html as opposed to json)?

It seems like a mistake to compete with Craigslist in its entirety. They had years to grow their community and brand while maintaining a relatively low cost structure.

Startups that are concentrating on different pieces of the pie and providing a better experience seem to be on the right track. AirBnb, OkCupid, and the other companies listed in the comments here. Even in the jobs space I find LinkedIn jobs having more and better listings than Craigslist.

It's easy to hate Craigslist because of stories about it "crushing" other companies. But much of Craigslist's value is in its data and that data being solely available on its website. If that data was available on competitors, then it would lose leverage. This is true for many websites out there and they go to lengths to protect that data (eg. LinkedIn shutting off its API to third-parties).

Bcrypt is no longer recommended.

NIST recommends PBKDF2.

In short, it appears that advances in hardware have made it possible such that bcrypt hashes can be efficiently computed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBKDF2 http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/4781/do-any-secu...

I would guess that technology caught up with them.

With the penetration of smartphones, I bet that that's become a better alternative than web IM for most people.

#FirstWorldProblems

A lazy analysis but look at revenue they're getting from payments. From their S-1:

Mar 31, 2011: $94MM Mar 31, 2012: $186MM

Obviously it's only two data points but payment revenue has grown 100%. Payments revenue only represents 10% of their total revenues.

WRT to this, the question becomes whether they could ramp up payments. I'm guessing that their main driver for payments revenue is games.

They recently launched offers. That could potentially drive revenue.

I think that Facebook should take on Square and enter the payments market. They're in a unique position to create Facebook Wallet.

The biggest barriers I see from this is that Zuckerberg would have to drive this kind of strategy and it doesn't seem like a move he'd take.

Social networking is not a fad. If anything it's becoming an underlying utility of the internet much like email, instant messaging and search. Any technology that's so core to the internet starts out as a standalone application (hotmail, AIM, Google) and becomes an underlying layer.

Facebook's advantage? They have a virtual monopoly on this utility. Not only that, switching costs are high (unlike email and search).

Look at the kind of growth apps gets from integrating with Facebook (Instagram, Viddy, Spotify). All social apps going forward will only reinforce their position by integrating with them.

Key fallacy in the argument: Revenue growth is compared to the average IPO.

If anything, Facebook is not the average company. It's not the average company that's gone public either.

That's not to say they won't have challenges growing revenue. I think that a company that's been around this long should've figured out how to mint money by now. But I think this analysis is wrong.

Office space is a fixed cost. Meaning with or without him, they would've paid that amount in rent. The same is true of the internet he used and the couch he slept on.

The only variable cost is the food he ate which was probably negligible all things considered.