webwanderings

I was just wondering yesterday, if there is a service out there, which would let me see the type and model of cars which are popular, and most-bought? I assume there must be such a dataset available somewhere through government sources? Or perhaps not. Such a data could be a valuable service based on crowd's wisdom. Amazon here seems to provide public comments, which is generally available via Google.

They're Facebook's property. They have all the rights to grab whatever the heck they can find on you, to slice and dice the data for their advantage.

Stay two miles apart from their properties, if you do not wish to be touched.

Apparently, there is more money (business?) in quantity, then there is in quality.

I agree with you. I clarified similar position in a followup[0]. However, let's not just confine ourselves to grandma and personal pictures. The issue is all encompassing content; some of lesser value, and some greater. You may think all of your shared content is of value, but the receiver may not feel the same. You have to judge (think) before you direct your message. It is of course an easy choice to send baby's pictures to the grandma, but when you have to target different pictures, you have to think about the target audience. Going one level deep, you may have a story to share instead of a picture. You are now hard pressed to email because you know others may have already seen it, or something else.

Ultimately, the evolution of the web to the social media has happened due to human's lazy nature. We are not capable of directing messages of mass nature to one-on-one. We can direct messages of personal nature to one-on-one, but that's about it. For this reason, social media - versus email - has been able to make inroads into people's lives. Certainly, we feel that one-to-many is not the right approach, hence we form this or that group, to confine ourselves into self-created boundaries (groups have its own pros and cons).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12345534

Yes, of course. That's very true. But there's a reason I used the words "common denominator" to explain the situation. I'd also appreciate and thank receiving the email. The social media sharing makes one feel less-valued. I'd rather people individually contact, to show that they care. Social media sharing is a detached sharing. It is a lazy man's ideal situation.

Sounded all good until I read this: "email them to friends and family."

You have a weak link there. In today's day and age, most people expect not to send or receive emails. Be that family photos or birthday wishes. The expectations is to share in a pool of social media, for everyone to see (or not see).

I am not a naysayer of your method (I prefer email), but it is practically too much work to select and send emails (takes a lot of thinking and decision making). This is why one-click sharing on social media, has been able to evolve to a point where it has set such an expectations across common denominator crowd.

Anybody can pretty much eat anything. They don't; which is a different matter.

Did NYT just confused the whole lot of the same confused people, by not providing anything of value in this article? Couldn't they have just published a stand-alone headline, which would have served the same purpose?

I've been communicating online since the days when Yahoo bought the eGroup/Onelist.

The "me too" is fine, but ultimately, what does all these clicks entail in a long run? Have they helped reduce the clutter and/or enhance the value of the conversation? What about the value of the commentator and his/her aggregate contribution? Do the number value provide any insight? Say that I may be an expert on Topic A, and I have gathered a whole lot of numbers (karma, or whatever else) due to my expertise on Topic A. What does that say to the reader, on my lack of expertise on Topic B, C, D?

The "me too" does not actually add anything to the value and diversity of opinion (other than it adds to the group-think).

Thank you for speaking my mind. I have been saying this wherever I see these karma-mechanisms being employed (likes, hearts, click buttons). I have not seen any website disclose to explain what exactly these button-clicks do to help anyone? These are basically waste of time and useless. I would not have helped you a bit if I had just clicked the up arrow on your comment (nor would I have helped the HN owners with the same action). But I hope this comment of mine would give you some food for thoughts (or neuron activities). The problem is, platform like HN (and many others) do not have any technology in place to derive the real "value" out of single person's comment(s). Forget the aggregate subjective value, they don't even have anything objective to show either. So if I have millions of karma points, I am supposed to be better in value? And useless if I have zero or karma in negatives? According to whose criteria? That's a failure of social media in general. None of these Likes, Retweets, hearts, or whatever, helps anyone in any substantive manner. These scoring points values do not help anyone in any substantive manner.

Just deactivate first and forget about it. Your life does not cease to exist because you are not on Facebook anymore. If there are people out there who genuinely care for you, they'll know how to get a hold of you. You can then share your life with them, if you care for them. The world has existed like this for thousands of years.

This[1] is what I recall I had (number 6). See the difference?

http://my-meccano.co.uk/SETS.html

Why can't I freaking buy plain old Meccano anymore? I can't get that thing out of my mind from the childhood days. I had one beautiful meccano set some 35+ years ago. I don't care about these Reactor pre-made BS boxes.

Whoa, is Brief still being developed? I gave up on it a long ago; it was a decent service.

Yes, agree. Do you recall orange colored interface? That's the only thing I recall, beyond creating tables/boxes and filling in the data.

That's not it for me. I recall creating boxes using arrow keys (not as much as creating database). It was very intuitive and fast to create tables (the work was ledger based accounting).

We used to use Lotus 123, Wordstar. This is before QuattroPro showed up and changed the landscape with its colorful grids and menus.

I used to use Wordstar a lot in young age. There was another software I used to use, which would let you create tables by hand, and let you fill data in it. For the life of me, I can't recall the name of that software. Unlike today's HTML tables, things were really WYSIWYG back then, between your monitor and the dot matrix printer.

There are tons of (young) Mainframe programmers and experts from India. Banks are facing no such problems. And no, they don't necessarily earn fat paychecks.

And I think you have broken a security rule if your screen shot of ISFP is from her bank. This whole article seems risky for her job.

Is there a good read anywhere on hardening the RHEL?

Firefox was once working on improving the Bookmarks Manager. I recall lengthy articles detailing the extensive study and research (sorry, do not have the link handy. No pun intended). Whatever happened to that project?

All the more power to introducing improvements to the Browser, but above does not give me confidence in signing up.

Digg Reader has been amazingly doing its job well. Have tried all kinds of RSS reader since the great demise of GR. Am very satisfied with Digg, irrespective of its past notoriety.

IRC/Live-chatting does not really solve any new problem which the Email has not solved already. If you look at live-chatting in the corporate and the personal world, you'll see that most often (and when things gets tough) people tend to either pick up a phone, or they'd send long-form email.

Email is the only revolutionary communication technology there is. The next evolution is that of email lists. Anything else beyond these two, be that Twitter, Facebook, etc (they are nothing more than public email) are not evolutionary in true sense.

I'd only take away BCC feature from the email as a mistake, or useless. Email-lists should have been the true BCC.

Actually, the proper definition (for the sake of understanding) is to treat this phenomenon as psychological therapy sessions. Based on my reading at the source, this group and the people involved, are engaged in a group therapy sessions. Now, one can bring association to religion, fairy tales, science, etc, but the essence stays the same. It is all about human beings trying to find meaning in their lives.

You're being down-voted but I was about to say the same thing (minus the bullshit part). They do seem like an evolved version of the same old New Age philosophy, which is an evolved version of the age old Eastern mysticism, which is technically all religion in traditional sense. Whatever.

Kharijite assassinated Ali.

Facebook is a walled-garden, Twitter is not. The humans in the middle of these two giants, are all confused.

Meanwhile, Twitter needs to figure out how they are preventing spammers and spam-bots from infiltrating the environment where humans supposed to tread...only if, they wish humans to use their service.

> Chromebook sold by various manufacturers. But it comes with more limitations, and requires users to be totally comfortable — I’m not

Tell that to the grandma. Believe me, I'm no Google Chrome fan, but Google Chrome OS is what Linux would never be. It is a completely different target audience. Microsoft, and Apple eventually, should be worried (and they are most likely worried - given the number of cheap Windows 10 laptops I have been seeing lately).

Winner!

Never much cared for Zuckerberg but this changes my perspective.

Off-topic: can Facebook please go ahead and literally kill the blogging industry by giving the ability for everyone to use these updated Notes section? As is, the majority of the referrer on the Internet is Facebook. They might as well get the blogs out of the way.