They could not have bought better advertising
719 karma · joined October 12, 2015
The locks also ran on batteries, which a technician came out multiple times in the ~year I lived there to replace. Overall was a nice add-on to the physical key for e.g. guest access but the economics of these things given the battery replacement seems dubious. If it ain't broke...
My last Airbnb went perfectly smoothy but there was still a ton of communication with the host. And that was only part of a dozen+ emails and a similar number of app notifications related to the stay. Why? At some point I just want to show up, crash, and leave.
Seems like this must be different (or old) data by State?
Not that things should never change - pieces of this puzzle should be replaced, but very carefully. A major technology exploit or bug at a major bank would be apocalyptically bad. The stakes are too high to rapidly entrust financial infrastructure to whichever fintech startup comes knocking. Consider the recent case of Robinhood, a big-leaguer as far as fintechs go, accidentally offering infinite leverage. This was enough to convince me not to want fintechs near the bones of the banking system for quite some time.
/s
But that sort of underscores the main argument against this stuff. Is it possible that many traditions, while once adaptive and beneficial, are no longer so? In other words, has the human situation departed so significantly from ancestral conditions that much of tradition is somewhere between irrelevant and harmful?
Of course not all tradition should be thrown out just for being old. But the tools of rationality have come a long way.
That seems like a huge recomposition in a single year. What caused this?
[1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-11-05/playin...
I think he was crazy. But it gave me pause
Here is a New York Times story about the “McKinsey Investment Office, or MIO Partners,” the in-house hedge fund of consulting firm McKinsey & Co., which invests employee money, including in companies that McKinsey advises. “That web of relationships underscores the unusual nature of McKinsey’s hedge fund, and the potential for undisclosed conflicts of interest between the fund’s investments and the advice the firm sells to clients,” says the Times, and I suppose there are some shady elements: When McKinsey advises on a bankruptcy, for instance, and its hedge fund owns one or another slice of the capital structure, then there’s a clear potential for conflicts of interest.
Mostly, though, it’s hard to get too worked up about this. For one thing, most of the fund’s money seems to be run by outside advisers, and even the stuff run by McKinsey employees seems to be mostly walled off from the consulting business. For another thing, the incentives are mostly good: McKinsey’s consultants are trying to make the company better, and its hedge fund is invested in the company and wants the company to get better, so there is no problem here. “The firm’s partners stood to profit from their own advice,” says the Times about McKinsey’s indirect investments in Valeant Pharmaceuticals, but why would that be bad? If they do stuff to make the stock go up, then they make money, but that is also what the company wants. (In the event, Valeant’s stock went down, which was bad for both Valeant and McKinsey.) Really companies ought to demand that their consultants buy some of their stock, so they have some skin in the game with their advice.
Of course, what would really be scandalous is if McKinsey’s hedge fund shorted companies that the firm advised, and then the consultants tried to give those companies ruinous advice. You couldn’t advertise that strategy, but much of the Times story is about how secretive MIO is, and if you can be secretive enough then maybe you could pull off this trade.
2. New York already has a lot to offer in terms of labor market, real estate for employees, and access to capital markets. Did Amazon really need incentives to want to be in NYC?
3. No huge loss for either party. NYC doesn't need Amazon, and Amazon can make the little people dance for them somewhere else.
Imagine such a bot on reddit, for instance. Imagine it's the stereotypical Russian bot, trolling the internet to sow discontent in the West. It might upvote anything about racial strife or immigration issues. It might show up in the comments to support Euro-skeptic candidates in the EU. It would pipe up about the Deep State in the US. Now imagine there's hundreds of thousands of similar bots, across a variety of sites. They would be able to control online discourse to a huge extent and dictate the media/opinion diet of millions of people. An army of these bots would be more powerful than any current propaganda arms, even those with State-level support.
The recently-growing doubt about the ethics of Silicon Valley and the tech it produces is part of this overall techno-skeptic view. The pace of change brought on by the Internet is blistering, but in the latter half of this decade it's started receiving some well-deserved backlash. The lessons on the destructive potential for blind technological progress were hard fought, but they weren't for nothing. I see reason to be optimistic.
He also added: "I find it deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don't believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don't think that they're intentionally getting it wrong.
That strikes me as naïve. Some, no doubt, are intentionally getting it wrong. Others have their heads so deep in the conspiracy sand that no polite discourse on Facebook is going to resolve it. Either way, this doesn't seem like a huge deal. Zuck says Facebook allows freedom of speech, even in muddy waters.
Like the article says, Instagram is absolutely an escape from the hostile interfaces and hostile posts that abound on core Facebook. It's still cool and it's still fun. Whatever the internal power dynamics, it seems unlikely that Facebook would be stupid enough to throw this away. What do they care if their bread gets buttered through the Instagram app?
Another interesting thing to note about Instagram is that a high follower count has become a status symbol. As people invest time and effort in building a large following, their commitment to the platform increases. It wouldn't surprise me if Instagram accounts for more than half of Facebook's value in the near future.