gopher1

Yeah, show some promise for fuck's sake. Like Nip Alert, Big Head's app. It gives you the location of a woman with erect nipples. Now that's something people want.

The patent system is truly broken.

The subconscious mind is a very powerful thing. Even if you say you don't respect those people more than others, it doesn't mean that you don't.

Money does correlate to happiness, so long as you have enough of it to live comfortably. Beyond that point, additional money does not increase happiness.

There's an important distinction between simply being ambitious about achieving greatness, and feeling as though you were destined, or meant, to achieve greatness. The former accounts for failure, while the latter does not.

Yeah, that stuck out to me as well. Thinking like that is a sign that there may be larger issues at play here. Truly satisfied and happy people don't believe themselves to have been destined for greatness in any such manner - even though they may or may not be as "great" as anyone else. And conversely, truly "great" people, are often the benefactors of circumstance and luck more than anything else. Focusing on attaining the greatness that you were destined to achieve is a recipe for lifelong disappointment.

This is not a privacy issue.

As with age, people are not expected to state their race in an interview, nor are employers allowed to discriminate based on race, yet this diversity report includes anonymized racial data. They could have easily included anonymized age data.

No age data?

There are 64,000 plaintiffs.

Source: http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/08/judge-rejects-comically-low...

Worse still, he starts with "design needs to stop with the feel-good bullshit", but ends with a bunch of save-the-world feel-good bullshit.

The fact that Silicon Valley has not solved the world's problems goes far far deeper than design, we're talking about fundamental problems of shareholder driven, Tayloristic style capitalism.

The example set for the in the article, Hugh Hewitt's interview with Zach Carter, is possibly the worst example the author could have used for ignorance in the media.

While ignorance in the media may or may not be an issue, this article does not demonstrate that it is.

Yes, it's possible to have a credible opinion on things even if you haven't read a select list of books that a Dick Cheney apologist has set forth.

Great, so now I have to maintain an updated LinkedIn profile, contribute to various open source projects on GitHub, sustain an active StackOverflow profile, and complete coding challenges on HackerRankX.

I hope the employer who hires me doesn't mind if I do all that on the clock!

Why not keep the account but only use it if someone messages you or requests to be a friend? To me that's the useful part of Facebook. The news feed is just nonsense.

First off, two of their "studies" simply compared the hamburger icon to different types of icons, but the functionality remained the same (slide out). Only one looked at changing the navigation entirely.

Second, this is not so much a reflection of fly-out/slide-out navigations as it is a reflection of the fact that on mobile you just have less screen real estate period. Nowhere in that article is there a real reckoning with that fact.

I've yet to be convinced that fly-out/slide-out/hamburger navigations are worse than the alternative when you have lots of items to display. Either way you're not going to be displaying something, and whatever is not immediately visible will receive reduced engagement. If your home page/screen is full of navigation items, something else will be hidden instead.

Not to mention the article provides solution for cases that have many navigation items - something that is very common.

Yes, it is more misogynistic than rock.

Why can't it be both? You might have a question as to why Piketty gets so much credit, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not very familiar with this product, but wouldn't the predictive analytics features help with inventory management?

Sorry but they lost me when they disparaged anti-SOPA efforts as being "information exceptionalism".

There's a very big difference between information property and "real" property. Until we can make perfect copies of land and houses at the click of a button, the two are not at all the same.

Yeah, exactly, and even though you're technically prohibited from excluding Americans in the job ads, take it from Cohen & Grigsby, there's plenty of ways around that problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU

They'll teach you how they assist employers in running classified ads with the goal of NOT finding any qualified American applicants.

You can thank them directly here: http://www.cohenlaw.com

Although I believe he meant "public" as in, people who were affected but not directly filing the lawsuits. So, as you say, people who worked for or were affiliated with the affected companies.

However, you can make the argument that this affected the entire North American tech labor market, in which case it truly would be the tech public at large.

Perhaps that's why they're so keen to settle.

So even though you acknowledge that the taxation system is unfair, and that it's due to a corrupt system. Despite the fact that this corrupt crony-capitalist system involves two actors, corporations and government, for some reason, you only blame the government?

Just because there may be a better system that exists out there in the abstract, where government is less centralized, and thus potentially less vulnerable to corruption, it seems like quite a bizarre leap of logic to exonerate one of the two main actors in the existing corrupt system.

Can you explain your logic please?

He probably avoids paying as much tax as he can, but he also probably doesn't spend millions lobbying politicians. The same can't be said for Apple.

The government screws up the tax laws because they have been captured by the lobbying arms of large multi-national corporations, including Apple. It's no surprise then that those same corporations are the ones who get to pay 0% taxes while your average startup or mom & pop business has to pay the 35% corporate tax rate because they don't have a dozen tax lawyers on retainer to get them through the loopholes.

Why give the corporations who spend millions lobbying against tax reform a pass, just because they're "technically" lawful?

It's bad because it's unfair.

If everyone, including small businesses, got to pay 0% tax, then you might have a good argument. But as it stands, we have a 35% corporate tax rate for everyone except large multi-national companies who have the means to take advantage of the loopholes. Regular Joe Business does not have those means.

And of course, these same large companies are spending millions lobbying the government to not reform the code.

Can you elaborate on this? Because there were plenty of projects funded by no-bid government contracts that failed. Likewise, plenty of government R&D dollars have also gone toward efforts that have failed.

Nobody bats 100%, but it all becomes worth it when they hit on something very big, like the micro-processor or the internet.

So what you're saying is that the photos for 4 out of 5 candidates will be junk shots?

Also, as someone pointed out in the comments of the article, if you count video games in the "time spent in apps", then really it's the gaming consoles and devices that are losing out, not mobile websites, so the discrepancy between web and apps is overstated.

As always, look at the data for your own website/service before deciding which path to take.

Just so you know, apps are also using any number of third party tracking services, and many are also ad-ridden.

Not to mention that apps usually have more/deeper access to your personal information.

If you're not a pension fund or other large investor, HFT's don't care about your orders.

True enough - we don't know the details, and your advice is sound.