>> It's that Adobe wants you to pirate the crap out of CS6, because they know they won't get money from you anyway.
Interesting. I've heard this thing before, with Photoshop and Windows too. Is there any evidence for this?
760 karma · joined July 20, 2010
Interesting. I've heard this thing before, with Photoshop and Windows too. Is there any evidence for this?
I'm not very well versed with the political process in the US but why aren't these bill ever discussed (or voted on) before they are passed.
Doesn't the public get to vote on these important issues?
(By the way, I come from a country where I don't get to vote on individual bills. Just thought things were slightly better in America.)
(It's not even funny. Like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pbEjOH7t0Q.)
Oh wait, but, it's The Economist.
Distributed Algorithms ($100) - http://amzn.to/glJVKv Algorithm Design Manual ($61.72) - http://amzn.to/f9G0KD
They are about $10 less than the physical book. Doesn't it cost them far less to produce, store, transport a digital version? I wonder how much of this goes to the author.
We might not base those intuitive decisions on clear cut reasons (that guarantee results, 100%), but we base them on past experiences and observed phenomena (that increase the likelihood of the result, sometime even to 100%.)
If you are asking about an intuitive decision that is not based on any of the above, then your question is really, "Should I make random decisions?" Sure, just because something has a minute chance doesn't mean it won't happen. It might just work.
I'm uncomfortable with the fact that anyone can find out my activities/interests/opinions/biases just by searching for my universal handle in a search engine.
I might be nitpicking here but intuitions are not always based on reasons. Some of our intuitions are based on reasons (eg: past experiences) and some are not (eg: preferences, prejudices.)
>> The measurements you choose (which will necessarily be >> somewhat arbitrary) will shape what you make, and you >> will most likely end up making the wrong thing.
Failure here is no more likely than failure after making a decision by intuition because we are still juggling with the unknowns.
I believe that sort of extreme skepticism is helpful in writing solid code and thinking about unintended consequences.
There are two separate aspects here, professional and personal.
Silicon Valley judges people based on their professional acumen and practices. And Gates did not please everybody in this department.
And the other aspect, yes, people in tech do admire his humanitarian efforts.
It's just that mixing two aspects of a personality and trying to come up with an overall score does not work.
Partly because that's annoying and mainly because I don't want to belong to another social network.
Bing is my default search engine because I'm paranoid about Google's tracking practices. In my experience, I still see cases where I do not find (all results, enough results, related results, etc) what I want on Bing and then I try Google and find it.
They've done a decent job nevertheless.
One good that can come out of it is people will start behaving themselves online too, just like they (mostly) do in person.
Surely, we will find content with a lot less use of subjective terms like "awesome" but I'm curious by how much. That's one way to get a sense how objectively critical the posts/comments mostly are.
From one point of view (say, a seller's) the solution of "reduced number of options" may be a good way to influence a quick and (potentially satisfying) decision (like Dan Ariely also says here - http://bigthink.com/ideas/20749.)
But I as a consumer would definitely want to explore all the options before making a decision. One good fix here is to just understand that one can't have everything and learning to prioritize the needs.