613 karma · joined May 23, 2011
Comcast is conflicted on topics from content to voice service. So neutering net neutrality is tantamount to deregulating a monopoly. That doesn't sound smart to me.
My main criticisms of the article are that it: (1) ignores modern wi-fi mesh technology; (2) oversimplifies "solutions" to the point of false equivalencies; (3) ignores performance and convenience concerns; (4) uses vague language ("it works"); and (5) treats "wi-fi" as a black box that operates in a vacuum and is not amenable to tuning (channels, power levels, freq's, etc.).
Ironically, the author's "buddy wi-fi" proposal embodies a subset of the capabilities of a current consumer mesh setup such as the Amplifi product that I use in my 3-story home.
They have been huge and slow for many years. Google Drive is non-core for them, which doesn't help. They probably have the data on "number of files per user." But if you are too far into the tail, they probably care little. Now if this were an ad-related issue....
That said, I can see a trimmed-down of this used as an evaluation tool for more substantial product development decisions. Ideally, these questions would be posed to a PM or dev manager and not directly to a coding team.
I also believe that the article is a good training piece for new(ish) general managers that have dev teams reporting to them. Along these lines, the listed criteria are a good thing to keep in mind for those GM's who (like me) sit in on product meetings while remaining fairly inactive.
IOW, the GM can listen-in and try to passively assess whether the team has a handle on these points. If not, address surgically and offline with the right folks.
GHG = Greenhouse Gas
Let's name our HC goals (the objective function) and then tackle the strategies.
The methods are wrong too, and spin off unfair side effects. For example, corporations by the (insurance) product, not consumers. This gives companies leverage in employment activities.
Edit-> Some form of tort reform (e.g., limitations of liabilities) would help as well. I don't have a current number, but layers of malpractice insurance drive substantial costs.
It's a big part of the problem. For example, I believed that a certain medical procedure was in my best interests. I was told that insurance often doesn't cover the costs (i.e., the considered the procedure "elective." When I asked the price, I was told $700 – but if I forego insurance claims it's $400. And this was a super-reputable medical establishment. (Half of Silicon Valley probably uses it.)
[0] https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/11/15/better-buy-the-wal...
I'm not sure what this means but it must be a lot because, on paper, they just raised about $10M per core developer. This for an open-source mobile client.
I have tried but I honestly just don't get the value prop of these ICOs. The only concept that my mind can latch onto is the basest of explanations – that these offerings represent a chance to ride a gold-rush wave of speculation.
I'm not assigning fault, certainly not with the founding tech team. Its just that the last time I felt so disconnected from a major upswell in the tech marketplace was 1999. Will ICOs follow a similar feast-famine-smaller feast curve?
I find little fault with the arguments laid out supporting the paper's thesis.
For those commenters making the jump to "sound quality" (which is not the topic of this paper), the quoted observation above conclusively proves that these headphones have differing tonal qualities. Even a casual listener will be able to hear a difference of 5dB in the critical freq range of human speech.
More clever, innovative app dev tech from the anonymous Ethan (aka @gliechtenstein). Think different.
(I have no affiliation.)
I guess the cars in the $30K's are sold.
Setting "don't be evil" aside, Google's only responsibility is to Google.
But here's the rub. Google's product is its users' attention. If they bias their search results enough, (maybe) they lose product inventory.
How much is "enough"? Probably much more than filtering WSJ.
But IMO bias in a search engine – a presumed oracle of truth – is evil. So there's that.
But do Chrome's protections also protect you equally from intercession by Google? I just want to clarify this point in my mind.
Sure, but Ethereum is a tool. An ICO is the result of a process.
My thesis is that many companies, large and small, could benefit from an ICO...and that the majority of these know little about ICOs, Ethereum, or the relevant government regulations.
The newco would present the following offer to the prospective customer: --We will ready you for a legal ICO within xx weeks. To do this, we will help you define the unit-of-value for your token and then put all systems, paperwork, and processes in place for the ICO. In return, we will receive coins worth nn% of the ICO as a success fee.--
This is a novel variation of an investment-banker play. Over time, large parts of the process could be systematized in software. Much of the ICO scene is scary and wild. [0] Pathfinders might be valued in this wilderness.
These are my raw and unvetted thoughts.
Good question. I was using the language according to this definition:
"A speculative investment is one with a high degree of risk where the focus of the purchaser is on price fluctuations. The investor buys the tradable good (financial instrument) in an attempt to profit from market value changes."
https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/speculativ...
I have raised VC, PE, and debt. Early-stage and late stage. Here's my take on "ICO vs VC."
ICO's:
For the investor, they are akin to commodity futures trading. The underlying value of the token is nil, as is the degree of control over the underlying property. But returns from price speculation can be very rich.
For the issuer, they have the money virtually without strings attached. There is no other form of assistance and no loyalty implied in either direction.
For example, I'd be shocked if there were positive "operational" returns from a token like the Brave coin. For that to happen, Google, Facebook, and the rest of the ad industry would have to grant sanction to the vendor of a Chromium-based browser startup yo turn the entire industry on its side. I doubt it. Seriously.
VCs:
For the investor, they get some modicum of ownership and control of the underlying property – sometimes not much but usually a lot. There is an implied responsibility to help with follow-on funding, but nothing solid. The investment is risky but not speculative.
For the issuer (of preferred shares AKA the company), they get the money with all kinds of strings attached. If the VC is top-tier (e.g., Fred, Kleiner, NEA, etc.), significant branding, easy intros, and many other benefits can accrue. If the VC is less prestigious, the operational impact is more neutral. (No VC can make your company grow or be successful – that's on you.)
My opinion:
1. If I could pull off an "ICO" (bad name) at my next company, I'd do it immediately. Great upside and little downside.
2. I say "immediately" because I don't think that this vehicle will last long in its current unregulated state. There will be failures. There are enemies. There will be evil deeds (fraud), and those deeds will involve unaccredited investors.
3. The ICO will be a short-term speed bump to VCs.
4. That all said, who wants to join me and start an "ICO production" company to create the coins and infrastructure for them to do their own ICOs? Speed is life, and I know some VCs... :)
I'm more skeptical than you guys about the Saas/cloud "plumbing" space. There's lots of open-source software out there and I think that value extraction – largely from PMs and devs – will be tough.
BTW, good call on Slack becoming a unicorn. ;)
I don't agree with his v3 vision as I think that AI is a better lever than trying to build an integration platform. The latter is hard, usually involves open source, and has slow adoption.
One of the things that we encountered was a vice between "can you add this filter" and "but I don't need this, only that filter."
In a more general sense, my research suggests that "IT in a box for SMB" is a deadly place to operate. They make sense on many levels, but they don't sell.
I believe that SMBs favor point solutions because they are pain-avoiders. If they've been phished, they want a remedy. Firewall? Content filter" Maybe later...
IME, the only way a Board can live with falling market share is if they believe the CEO/company is poised with some "secret weapon" bringing new competitive advantage soon.
Evidently, secret weapons are in short supply in Dearborn.
Isomorph is really cool, but it's a "next 5 years" (or not) – not 25 years.
The future will be declarative. It'll allow voice input, possibly as the primary modality. Objects and functions will be passe.
IOW, describe what you want the program to do, then we'll refine (i.e., sculpt the details together).
BTW, if you can easily discern 256k from 320k, I'd venture to guess that you are a 1% "golden ear" listener. OTOH, even my 60yo ears can tell 128k from 256k.
The categories/keywords are well known, and I believe that simple statistics would suffice to produce the type of results shown.
Of course, the text would have to be scanned and the dataset cleansed/filtered first. But those techniques predate ML/NLP.
What do you mean by this?
Or "appliance" vendors. SaaS and hardware appliances are two delivery mechanisms that leverage loopholes in GPL requirements.