The content creators are also users. The announcement emphasizes that they're doing this to help improve the content creator experience.
2,275 karma · joined June 4, 2011
To put it another way - climate change is sure to be a disaster, but if we get better recycling technology, more efficient cars, pollution-free power generation and other improvements as part of the work of fighting it, that's at least a silver lining.
* A description of what SEO actually is
* Any mention of how SEO came to exist
* Even a hint that figuring out which search result to return might be hard to do, or that the process might be game-able
If I only read this article, I would be pretty justified in walking away from it wondering why search engines or the government don't just "ban SEO" and call it a day.
When you get past the cats eating blueberries and anal beads parts, the article is mostly a high level recount of the ways SEO has evolved over time and how Google has made changes to its search algorithm to fight spammy websites. The author then concludes that there is still hope, because the EU has fined Google a few times. What?
Tegus is a financial research platform for institutional investors: we make a one-of-a-kind searchable database of thousands of investor-led interviews with industry experts. Our services division sources calls between our investors and the industry experts, which are then transcribed and put onto the platform. Investors use Tegus’ qualitative insights to quickly get up to speed on companies and industries, which helps them make smarter investment decisions.
Our subscription customers are hedge funds and private equity firms, who combined manage many billions of dollars in assets. We've clearly hit product/market fit: both our sales and number of employees are on track to nearly triple this year.
We’re hiring full stack engineers and iOS engineers for onsite roles at our Chicago HQ, although we're all remote until the office reopens sometime next year. Our tech stack is Ruby on Rails, Vue, GraphQL, Postgres and Typescript. We're also working on an iOS application in Swift UI.
I’m the head of engineering - please feel free to drop me a line at lionel@tegus.co.
Did the author just compare market capitalizations with GDP? What? It's hard to take some of this stuff seriously.
Tegus makes research products for institutional investors - we provide a layer of qualitative expertise on top of the quantitative research products investors already have. We already have hundreds of paying customers and millions in recurring revenue, but we're just getting started.
I'm looking for senior engineers who can help build our core technical infrastructure, deliver great products and lead others to do the same. We use Vue.js, Typescript, GraphQL, Rails and Postgres, but I'd love to talk to you even if you don't already know every element of our tech stack.
See more at https://www.tegus.co/careers/senior-software-engineer. If you're interested, email me (I'm the head of engineering) at lionel@tegus.co.
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/US-EU-UR-2009-05.pdf
It'd be pretty silly of two professional economists to make a bet about two numbers that are measured differently. They know about U3 vs U6.
Also, I don't think anyone has changed their definitions of unemployment recently. BLS publishes all of them and the official rate has been U3 for like, 40 years or something.
def reduce(enumerable, fun) do
result =
Enumerable.reduce(enumerable, {:cont, :first}, fn
x, :first -> {:cont, {:acc, x}}
x, {:acc, acc} -> {:cont, {:acc, fun.(x, acc)}}
end)
|> elem(1)
case result do
:first -> raise Enum.EmptyError
{:acc, acc} -> acc
end
end
https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/blob/v1.7.4/lib/elixir...
In the late 60s, as the early political struggles of the the baby boomers were coming into full flower, Stewart Brand published a series of books about how to build back-to-the-land communes. While they were high quality productions and somewhat influential, they were written based on some mushy political ideologies that have since been discredited. In the present day Brand, now an old man, has realized some of his mistakes and half-heartedly distanced himself from the premises of the "Whole Earth Catalogue". Instead of a sort of pseudo-intellectual hippy libertarianism, he now identifies with the thinking of people like Steven Pinker, another baby boomer, who has written extensively about how despite the obvious growing problems of the early 21st century, everything is actually fine. The author closes by musing on the damage the boomer generation has caused.
The paragraph at the end is not a random addition - it's the point of the article. The point is: Brand had it wrong in the 60s and he has it wrong today. His calls to retreat from politics and build utopian communes in the 60s reflect his panglossian attitude now; in both cases, he washes his hands of the hard work of actually building and surviving the real world.
Also - if you're not familiar with Anna Wiener, I think her best work is the essay "Uncanny Valley": https://nplusonemag.com/issue-25/on-the-fringe/uncanny-valle...
>Meeker is leading an exodus of late-stage investors from Kleiner Perkins in its most dramatic shake-up since legendary investor John Doerr stepped back from his role more than two years ago.
People live in society together. Broadly speaking, political decisions are decisions about what the rules for how we should go about living and working together are. We tend to think of things as _obviously_ political when the community has a debate about whether or not something is acceptable (like abortion). But because politics sets the boundaries of social life, it also defines its interior.
For example, you and I (probably) both agree that it's totally reasonable to go to Starbucks and buy a cup of coffee. We don't think of this as an action anywhere near the boundaries of acceptable conduct, and so we both think of it as not having a whole lot of political meaning. A Marxist, however, would argue that we're participating in an exploitative system because we're using private property, shopping at a capitalist-owned business, etc.
We both don't buy their argument, but simply because they've made it, we're forced to concede that buying coffee is political act. By buying coffee, we're saying we're comfortable with the structures that created Starbucks, or that we judge any harmful consequences of buying coffee to be less important than our day to day convenience. The fact that the action is normal doesn't change the fact that at some point _we decided it was acceptable_, and that decision was _definitely_ political.
To give another example, the Free Software Foundation, is explicitly founded on the idea that everyday acts have political meaning, no matter how normal they are. Take this passage from their site (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor...):
>>>With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That is unjust in itself, and tempts the developer to mistreat the users in other ways.
>>>Freedom means having control over your own life. If you use a program to carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on your having control over the program. You deserve to have control over the programs you use, and all the more so when you use them for something important in your life.
The FSF is arguing that the way you distribute software is a political decision, not just a matter of technical convenience, and they're totally right to point this out.
Anyway. To bring it back to LambdaConf, De Goes is clearly wrong to claim that things have "become" politicized. It's more accurate to say that giving a speaking slot to racists was political acceptable and has become politically disputed. De Goes doesn't like that things have gone from acceptable to disputed, so he claims he doesn't want things to be "political". But things were always political, it's just that previously they weren't controversial.
This is why people who argue against "politicizing" issues are implicitly arguing for the politics of the status quo. They're arguing against change.
When someone says, "I don't want this to get political", what they're really saying is "I'm comfortable with the politics of the status quo and I want things to stay the way they are". Sometimes that's totally fine. In this case it means giving a voice to a racist advocate of slavery.
De Goes can have his conference, but arguing that this isn't a political decision is simply incorrect.