swyman

The post says they'd block ads from their own network that violate the standard as well

Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly (IANAL) but that article left me thinking the mistake was signing the original deal with Sony. Does fair use actually cover what the platform did at at the time?

> The approach we take is to track a lot, and figure out what works the best over time.

That's really, really bad statistics.

Except that time he intentionally sabotaged the 1968 peace talks to end the Vietnam War because he thought it might help him win an election. For reference, the war continued until late 1975. He is directly responsible for each and every casualty and atrocity committed in those 7 years, as well as the thousands upon thousands of irreparably mentally and emotionally damaged veterans that survived.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/nixon-tried-t...

Divesting would actually be the more direct form of profiting from the status quo. Lock in the gains that the status quo created for you before the culture becomes so toxic the company folds. Keeping your holdings and releasing this letter is actually the bravest thing you could do as an investor.

What kinds of situations do you think are more appropriate for web or web-like apps?

Would you mind sharing an example or pointing me to a good guide that explains this concept? How does functional programming make a problem less complex than OO or imperative? I've heard this a couple of times, but the intuition has never quite clicked for me.

The correct version of the argument is that Facebook can afford to pay for extra bandwidth and reduced latency, but new market entrants cannot. Snapchat has plenty of funding.

It also has knock-on effects in the allocation of financial gains of successful startups. The more money required to launch/scale a company, the more likely it is that investors (capital) get a larger share of the profits than founders or employees (labor). That's not necessarily a direct reason to oppose/favor net neutrality, but is worth considering alongside all the other data points.

Why yes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tct38KwROdw

I have a really hard time putting much stock in metaphors that have so many components and work backwards from the metaphor to the real world. Too easy for the truth and usefulness of the advice to get stretched out to make the comment as a whole flow properly.

Uber/Airbnb/et al aren't still private just because there's some uncomfortable risk they're afraid will push away public investors. There's a whole host of reasons to stay private (lawyers, executive time/energy, SEC compliance, public investors are generally more myopic than private ones, etc, etc, etc). The "nut" you mention might be an inconvenience, but it's surely not even close to the most important reason to stay private.

90% of our Tor traffic was script kiddies

It covers the costs of ensuring the applicant meets the agreed-upon regulatory requirements. Next question.

You didn't even read the article. The predatory pricing they're talking about is running competition out of business by selling below cost until they have a monopoly.

From what I understand there's a clause in the deal that allows Verizon to walk away if Yahoo was hiding something "material" from them.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/material-adverse-change-clause-i...

Thanks for all that info. It's really nice to have both source material and a reasonable summary.

That's all well and good, but I'm turning off Uber's access to my GPS entirely.

You're not doing yourself any favors here. People say they don't trust your company because of past behavior of the company itself and history of even ethical companies being bought or changing priorities, and you just keep pushing me further and further toward Lyft or my bike.

Stop pretending people can't decide for themselves how much privacy they want and from whom

> I can't blame the visitors, because they were here for a cheap holiday and knew no better. And the people who rented out their flat are really nice (I'm otherwise on good terms with them). So it's hard to blame anyone but Airbnb and their business model.

You can have an otherwise good relationship with someone while still holding them responsible for something they did.

Ultimately the responsibility to pick reliable tools lies with the carpenter

This is a great question. Bull markets (in retrospect) select for aggressive risk-takers without much regard for their sophistication, and bear markets the reverse. You'd basically want to perform this analysis on everyone doing this type of trading over a period of like 25 years.

Therein is the issue with a lot of social and behavioral science: the really really interesting stuff is just so hard to actually measure and experiment with.

> without reduction in American worker's wages.

Those jobs would need to be replaced with something paying a similar wage for this to be true. Otherwise you'd move along the demand curve for labor to a point with the same number of total jobs and lower wages paid for each.

Personal anecdote incoming: I don't buy as many games as I used to as a teenager/college student, but the ones that I do spend money on now are the ones I see on Twitch.

Fun fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern...

Does it need to be the main cause (or even a cause at all) of the initial jump in incarceration rates for private prisons and their lobbying (and incentives in general) to be objectionable? There's a group of relatively influential people and businesses who have a direct economic incentive to prevent the rehabilitation of prisoners and to lobby for harsher penalties across the board. At a systems level, I'd argue that needs fixing.

Don't most reported private valuations fail the most basic smell tests? If share rights, liquidation preferences, and seniority are homogenous, doesn't each share need to be summed individually vs multiplying quantity * latest senior price?

There are enough moving parts and conflicting incentives within the system that it's unlikely to be that simple. In theory, yes, they may have underpriced their IPO and left some money on the table, but that isn't necessarily the worst thing. In general, it's better to be thought of as a company that's outperformed expectations than underperformed them.

Exactly. Taken to its extreme, this is the argument in favor of the seeming paradox that we'll never run out of oil, despite the Earth having an obviously finite supply.

I thought Fadell leaving was universally viewed as a positive...

Or their other options are ripe for disruption