stuffedBelly

This may sound like a joke but I think it might work - would carrying a pedal/hand generator resolve emergency like this, at least for a little while?

Read Javascript the Good Parts by Crockford and you will feel slightly better about the language.

They are not running a separate Blockchain and equating their system with how Blockchain works is quite misleading. I work in finance and use Bloomberg's system daily. It's essentially an online data provider/analytics platform running in a terminal-like environment. I don't think they would sneak in a private Blockchain without clients knowing about it. Even if they would, what for?

that's why companies in Bay Area need to at least try to be good citizens representing Silicon Valley. Generalization is a tendency in human nature.

My thoughts exactly. Or host semi-exclusive parties at larger public venues such as bowling centers, where employees have chance to mingle with outsiders, likely with better gender ratio (most such venues have split sections and people can walk across them. Thirsty Bear in SF is a good one). Not to even mention implication on gender issues, hiring models to interact with employees does not really help them improve their social skills.

> "I gave advice to Jeff Bezos 10 years ago,” Mr. Ma said, referring to Amazon.com Inc.’s chief executive. “I said: ‘Please send people with entrepreneurial spirit, not professional management. Because wherever you go, doing business in another country is very difficult"

He's stating the obvious (typical success story speech with no substance). It's way too generic to be a legit advice, and "entrepreneurial spirit" is definitely not why his company succeeded.

> “Give me five examples of Chinese companies that succeed in America,” he said. “Or Asian companies that succeed in America. Because it’s not easy to do business across nations, it takes time.”

He equates a highly controlled market with a relatively free market. Either he does not understand economics or he stirred up the concept intentionally. It's not easy to do business across nations, but clearly one market is easier to access than the other.

Look, I understand why lots of people worship Jack Ma. He's like the Steve Jobs/Bill Gates of China, but even those two had taken advantage of things most entrepreneurs had not. All in all, I care more about the health of economy of my home country than what Jack Ma has to say about U.S. companies.

The younger generation (born in 80s/90s) in China is usually aware of the amount of censorship imposed and take the government policies and billionaires' success stories with a grain of salt. There are smart ways to get their voices out through music, art projects and onion articles, and escaping the censorship has become a fun game to play (hidden political memes are everywhere right under the big brother's eyes).

that probably refers to the large amount of capital from China instilled into Hollywood over recent years.

I don't think Jack Ma is at a place to tell other companies what to do given Alibaba itself benefits from the government's shield that keeps foreign competitors away. In the long run, an Alibaba monopoly formed of protective policy will be detrimental to the Chinese consumers.

P.S. I am Chinese and hold a neutral stance on US/Chinese political systems, but economics common sense tells me Jack Ma spat out quite some hypocritical BS there.

The title pretty much summarized it.

ah I see. Didn't think it was sarcasm at first because there are definitely people around me who think that's a good idea, e.g. all my friends who work at Amazon

Actually Singapore has a similar program. The Singaporean government pays tuition for some students for them to finish their higher education abroad. After graduation, they come back and work for the government full-time for a couple of years in exchange.

you are essentially saying you are happy about an upcoming monopoly. Consumers will benefit if there are competitions

An OK marketing piece for Two Sigma, but I don't see why being a Hedge Fund has anything to do with it. BTW, Robocode has been there for years and there is a huge community behind it.

P.S. I work in finance and sometimes find companies in this industry try way too hard to appeal to the younger generation. Lots of marketing pieces sound like dad jokes.

P.S. I live with depression and have been recovering over the years.

I really want this to work but I am afraid this Facebook AI based on posts will miss a big portion of people with suicidal thoughts.

First of all, many who are depressed do not like to share and that is why first step of counseling is usually to make the patients open up and talk, not to mention posting on Facebook about their feelings

Secondly, often times suicidal thoughts appear suddenly, making it tougher to detect preemptively. The best way to prevent suicide is for people to be there with the subject instead of messaging/calling. There are physical traits (anxiety, abnormal silence/talkativeness, etc) that can be easily spotted in person. Therefore constant visits is better than relying on Facebook AI.

All in all, I don't think AI is needed for suicide prevention. All Facebook really needs to do is to put, in a user's profile page, a visible "counseling" section providing immediate info about the suicide hotline and nearby counseling/therapy centers. But that wouldn't be as a big of a selling point as "AI for early signs of suicide", would it? If everyone knows the suicide prevention hotline just like they know 911, it would have prevented lots of suicide already.

This event is so comical that makes me wonder why there isn't already a movie about it.

Right. Alibaba Cloud Service can pretty much hold on its own.

> coworkers become accomplices, and gaslight his abuse

Personally I think this is the worst part. It's much harder to deal with a group of jerks and their like-minds. A group typically self-justifies their behaviors and more likely to defy company policies. That's why bullies typically come in packs.

haha, I bet his mind will be blown by Eclipse/IntelliJ then.

Meanwhile they think nowadays TV channels are boring and crappy, generation gap at its working :)

wow, I totally overestimated people's ability to get sarcasm.

mass fleet of void rays would do.

You know what, as an H1B receiver, I am fine with more scrutiny towards H1B. Over the past few years, I have seen competent international coworkers not able to get H1B visa because:

1. it's a lottery system, regardless of background and academic accomplishment.

2. it's been abused by outsourcing companies. Practices such as multiple-filing for one person are so shady that it baffles me how loose the inspection towards H1B application is.

I totally agree that American citizens should be prioritized when it comes to hiring and my country would do the same for its citizens. I also know that immigration service is a booming business for many American law firms and they have their own agenda to go against any further regulations towards H1B. However, in a long run, if done properly, a more merit-based/restricted H1B visa could actually be beneficial to outstanding individuals who follow the rules.

As someone that love American culture but also have pride in his academic/career accomplishment, I stay in the US because I like this place, not that I have to, and I am more than happy to go back to my homeland or somewhere welcoming if I am not welcomed here anymore. H1B has never been the last straw of my life and it's true for many folks I know. I am all for making H1B more accessible for accomplished individuals and more restrictive towards those who cheat the game, but do it properly so that America doesn't give an image of Xenophobia to the world.

Actually from a financial perspective, wealth is assets you own (equivalent to equity + liability). People with high net income should be investing as much as possible to let the money flow in the market. If everyone saves with no intention to invest/spend, it would potentially result in a stagnant economy.

It's not hip anymore, but it's still relevant. A company might need to be hip to hype up their technology at the initial stage to gain audiences but eventually they need to settle on a mature business model that might not seem exciting but would let the company survive.

aha, what's Google's robotics division called again?

hmm...you certainly burnt lots of bridges. If you did contractor work for those companies that would be fine, but a full-time hire that does this would be a serious red flag.

Some opinions on this article are naive but I do agree regulation is an important step forward. Unless there is regulation like the Fiduciary Rule in place for tech companies, they can say "we are making the world a better place" however and whenever they like but they are not obliged to actually do it. These companies will be your friend if there are economic incentive to do so, or it would incur legal costs if they weren't to comply to their role as a fiduciary to their clients.

Paying a fee makes economic sense. Open sourcing Android is an (rather successful) attempt to expand market share at the initial stage, considering that Android phone makers such as Samsung and LG already have established brand before the Android hit.

The fee Google's paying is for these established phone makers to distribute Google apps to a large market. The deal Google made with these companies is probably not as simple as "I open source Android <--> You distribute my apps for free" although these two things seem like a trade-off from a developer perspective. It seems, to distinguish itself from Apple's ecosystem, Android advocates for fair competition and its "openness". Google will get unfair advantage to all the other Android app developers if they get to distribute their app for free across Android devices.

The truth is, unless they are all Richard Stallman, all these companies open source stuff as a business strategy rather than from a pure good will.

gamermorbid@gmail.com