jnaglick

The preposition at the end of that sentence is unnecessary. Guessing you're from the midwest? :)

When people on HN don't bother to read the article, clickbait titles flood the frontpage.

This article is marketing for a yogurt company disguised as journalistic content, not an analysis of how new foods are introduced to America.

I suppose Subway Signaling would be a book unto itself

I think measuring "human-usable information" is a slippery slope. You'll start with just believing that only human-language text qualifies, but the definition can be pushed.

For example, "human-usable information" could be added by changing the color of certain words. If our site is meant to teach English, changing all nouns to the color green is useful and definitely "human-usable information," right? But how do you measure the amount of information it conveys?

It's ultimately very philosophically hard. This matters because a webapp's assets (images, styling, scripts) are as much a part of its content as the actual text on a page. But if you confine your definition to encompass only human-readable text, I don't think it's useful.

It's almost like people with no education or training and a history filled with criminal activity can't be trusted to run financial institutions.

It's almost like there is a great irony in the fact that people who mistrusted government run banks sought an anonymous unregulated cryptocurrency and then immediately got ripped off because it's anonymous and unregulated.

I try to act in accordance with my political beliefs. In the past, I've boycotted Coca-Cola and Nestle, become a vegetarian for 5 years (vegan for 1 of those...), given up Facebook, and etc. You could argue all of these actions are pretty trivial and, really, do more to placate myself than they affect the real world. But I live this way nonetheless, and I believe there are millions of other people like me.

I would guess that there has never been a case of a criminal investing their ill-gotten gains into "a truckload of perishable vegetables."

It is much, much more likely that law enforcement hacked onion domains because of their improper implementations of TOR procedures and/or general shitty security than it is that they discovered a fundamental security vulnerability in TOR.

The weak link here isn't TOR, it's the doofus who bought the Tesla with $130k worth of BTC.

Which is why I would never mess with darknet sites. I trust the TOR network, but I don't at all trust the individual domain owners.

That was a great analysis of their technology, but I don't think this is everything wrong with tech investing.

I think there are larger implications about how VC driven start-ups could be changing society for the worse. Whether the infringements upon the rights of lets-not-call-them-employees in 2-sided markets, or $1B valuations given to free apps whose users are [perhaps unknowingly] paying with their personal information, there is quite a lot to unpack to say the least.

A great tech writeup but I think he misses the mark on "everything wrong."

Possibly an interesting article but after reading 4 sentences my central nervous system liquefied and started dripping out of various orifices.

markdown file, so old school.

My fairly worthless opinions as an NYC Startup Programmer:

1) 'Disruption' is just a code-word for skimming margins in legal grey areas

2) The founder of Uber's twitter avatar used to be the cover of "Atlas Shrugged" (update: it's now a picture of Thomas Jefferson.)

3) Only tourists and transplants believe using an app is in any way better than simply hailing a cab (with exception for storms, bad times, and bad locations)

No idea why this company ever deserved my trust in the first place.