justinsingh

Not all are.

Obama inherited the market on a low. We are at a high and what may have been compatible with growth at a low may not be good enough for improving the market on a high.

I don't think it's a trend. Besides Trump, who else would be part of this trend?

Can they afford this acquisition? Seems huge.

Pretty sure it's just a technical issue. I once did the same thing and I believe it showed me as having some tweets left.

So in other words: now it's just about making life easier for you.

Sounds good to me!

I felt like the second half of the post took on a totally different theme from the first half. Maybe I'm missing the point of the article.

But as for the second half.. I feel that cars are going to adapt to us, rather than us adapting to cars. It's already happening, as the Volvo steering wheel example describes.

How many celebrity investments in how many different startups does it take for your metric to reveal that there's a bubble?

Understanding something does not mean agreeing with something.

I disagree with the idea that artists should be shamed for selling out.

As I said, I understand where the fans are coming from in this type of situation. So, they of course have a right to complain. But the answer of why they did it is right in front of them- they wanted quick financial success.

> They are mad the artist chose not to fight for the integrity of the product, and just took the money straight away.

That product's time is over because the artist says so. No consumer of art is promised a qualitatively consistent stream of content. Don't like it? Then don't buy into it. Just because fans have an emotional attachment to an expired product does not mean it should continue to be created if the artist doesn't want it to be. Why should it? If their new product is not worth the price it goes for, then it will fail.

> You equate success with watering down the product, but it doesn't have to be that way. Plenty of artist have fought before.

And I'm sure plenty have fought and failed as well. If the artist wants to pick the quickest route to financial success, however they define that wealth, then it does have to be that way.

Not every artist wants to go through the "fight" that you mention. And that's fine- they reached the success they wanted because of their hard work that led up to that point.

I'll admit that I don't know too much about Lucas as a person, but this assessment strikes me as a pattern I see amongst artists and their followings. Long time fans who feel a special attachment to the works of an artist always like to say how the artist "sells out" rather than choose to say they succeeded.

Artist makes something awesome -> people get attached -> artist starts making moves against -original- fan base's interest for the sake of larger financial success -> -original- fans get mad at their success.

This happens in the music industry. An artist will sign to a label where they lose control over their lyrics or thematics and their original following will feel betrayed. But that sense of betrayal can make fans overlook how it was for the betterment of the artist. They attained the success that every artist dreams of! Maybe they made sacrifices to the 'integrity' (however you define it) of their craft, but they reached an extent of financial security and wealth that they always wanted for doing what they love.

"Artists deserve to make good money!!" "Wait no.. artists should feel ashamed of reaching success because it hurts my feelings!!"

I understand where the fans are coming from, but I think it's just as reasonable to view "selling out" as "reaching success"- which makes me happy for the artist.

I am referring to Gilroy. The distance seems "too far" but it's something you adapt to rather quickly. Pretty much everyone in my neighborhood works in tech at Cupertino and surrounding areas. If you're able to work around leaving during rush hour traffic then that's even better.

Data center/Network engineer

My dad got laid off from the Fremont Western Digital location just the other day ago. He saw it coming as they were warned layoffs would keep coming (WD has been laying off workers since the middle of last year, I think). So luckily we moved to a nearby city with substantially lower housing prices than in San Jose, where we were spending lots more than we could justify on housing. If we had stayed in San Jose, we would be in some real big financial troubles- pretty much game over. But where we live now (which is actually in a house of the same size, just significantly cheaper) we are living more comfortably and happier without the stress of living in such an expensive city.

Anyone living in an expensive city with a layoff seeming imminent should really be thinking on the long term about where it's best for their family to live. Going day to day wondering if you'll be able to keep your house is not a healthy way to live.

Just an anecdote about the older site. I was in a comp sci class at school a year ago. My classmate next to me asked what editor I use because it was a Beginning C++ class, and I said emacs. He went to the website which looked incredibly outdated to the expectations of new programmers, and just felt uncomfortable giving it a try. He opted for an editor with a more modern website.

So with the new website, which looks good, maybe emacs will seem more accessible and worth giving a try to new programmers who cross paths with it. At the same time, maybe that sense of accessibility is misleading given the learning curve of emacs that isn't exactly beginner-friendly. Nonetheless, I like the site!

Taleb is an important living person. Whether or not you agree with him or even like the guy, you oughta admit that his reputation is significant. Seems like you knew who was being referred to, didn't you?

By 'says' in your comment, I hope you mean 'tweet'. Andresseen has said and done many smart things.

From my understanding it seems that the technology exists to replicate human art, not to create new styles on top of it. So I think in order to train the technology to do more styles of art it will require humans to make those new styles.

People who compete want to get recognition for their accomplishments. "Getting off this rock" has so far been led closer to becoming true by cold hard competition. So sorry bud, people will always want credit for their success whether you like it or not. And hey, who said we won't get off this rock during the process of all that?

I for one think that giving credit where credit is due is an important thing.

Because having freedom in how you spend your leisure time obviously means that taking away that optionality would lead to.. revolt!!! I just don't see your logic here. It seems outdated.

It sounds like you are under the assumption that all religious people view their religion as scientific explanations. Religious fundamentalists take their religion literally, but not everyone is a religious fundamentalist.

Regardless, I think that "Religion has helped a lot of people, it's also hurt a great many people too.. so let's just focus on converting people out of religion!" is a dangerous position that will cause harm to many. Scientific processes for finding truth (which are really just things that are the least false) and religion are two separate domains. I don't see an explanation of what "the trap/maze" is and why it demands to be detached from humanity.

Religion, that's what you want AI researchers to spend resources on? Even if "exposed as completely illogical", it would not stop religion from helping people live their lives with comfort and guidance. I'm not saying everyone needs religion, but it does help many people. What reaction are you expecting the world to have in the scenario that AI shows religion to be illogical?

I can't think of any teenager friend who uses Facebook, Instagram, Vine, or Snapchat as a substitute for google search. What type of info are you referring to? I'm not sure I understand how you can even use most of those for getting info that one would normally google search for.

Yup! You're right, and I wasn't referring to all colleges nationwide. Just the points backed in the video I saw.

Can you give me sources that exemplify supporters of safe spaces who aren't fundamentally against shaming any idea that may offend people?

My knowledge on this topic is limited to only the video I saw of a group of students arguing with a professor.

The students were arguing about the FUNDAMENTAL criteria of what should be allowed to be expressed. If something offends people, that's not acceptable. So, this criteria is not limited to only "new ideas like blackface and rape jokes"- it's anything that is considered offensive, and that's why it may discourage experimentation.

The problem I identify is that such "safe places", from what I understand, discourage experimentation and new ideas by shaming concepts that may offend them.

I am interested in hearing your logic behind how this specific movement is going to generate innovation & innovators, as I think you are claiming (correct me if I'm wrong please). I think you may be mistaken if you believe this is just a challenge against the older generation- it seems to be a challenge against the ideas that do not conform to their criteria of having to be inoffensive.

“The classical man's worst fear was inglorious death; the modern man's worst fear is just death.” -Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Actually it's called an informed choice.

"There's nothing they can do about it."

And yet this is said in a thread about MS certainly doing something about it. Your attitude seems to be pretty pessimistic.