AdamFernandez

I really appreciate that one of the richest (sometimes the richest) humans on the planet takes the time to read about the experience of poverty in depth. Hopefully that continues to influence his philanthropy, and his influence on what other wealthy individuals and other policy makers do.

To me the biggest problem isn't 'evil' AI (SkyNet/Matrix scenarios) since I don't think it is possible to predict the intrinsic motivations of non-biological intelligence (no evolved neurochemical dependencies like we have/infinite capacity to grow beyond our limitations). That makes way too many assumptions about AI continuing to remain like us (curious, jealous, afraid, etc.) when all our behaviors evolved in us and are limited by biology. I'm more worried about something emerging unintentionally that does harm (as in the overused 'paperclip maximizer'). In that instance, not about being on 'our side'.

Education is a great long-term solution, but we need a PSA/Marketing solution for rational thought today. Similar to the TRUTH anti-tobacco campaign. Make it 'cool' to use logic and base your decisions on rational thought. I'm not advocating any particular policy issues, but a lot of problems can arise if people can't tell the difference between real and fake news, and don't bother to. They don't bother because thinking rationally is not something we encourage.

I can attest this problem is insidious and pervasive through-out society. Not just in the U.S., but globally. Separate from the moral issue of children growing up in disadvantaged environments, this is an economic problem, and a problem for the advancement of humanity. There is so much hidden value in masses of people that have no way deliver this value due to circumstances. I know anecdotally, you can point to individuals who made it despite these setbacks, but this is not the norm statistically by far.

What would happen if we found a way to lift these people up?

How much better off would everyone be economically by the value these hidden 'diamonds' create? (and by everyone I mean even the wealthy)

How much faster could humanity be advancing in general?

From a practical and factual perspective, ignoring this, or just waving it off as 'the best rise no matter what', is so damaging and counterproductive that it is actually holding back everything.

While they may one day be 'creative', I feel this will be the last bastion of human capability beyond AI. Luckily, the interesting thing about creative endeavors is that they are often a unique synthesis of many things. AI may create wonderful art, music, entertainment, etc., but this does not mean things created by humans won't still be valuable to other humans. Things would just be created in parallel and in communion with AI. That being said, the percentage of the population that can 'create' for income/profit may be very small. Hopefully by that point, we will create for the intrinsic value of creating and sharing, and not for money.

The best possible brand connotations are an interesting way of putting it. When you are trying to get a company off the ground (figuratively) that is experimental in nature and will require a lot of capital investment, why hinder yourself with this 'bad' name right out of the gate? There are any number of edgy names they could have picked that people didn't associate with the last thing you want to have happen on an airplane. It is just unnecessary, and not well thought out. Even if the intent was to get attention, I wonder how many people at Boom talked to the founders and said: "Are we sure about 'Boom'?"

I agree. Of all the options, quite possibly one of the worst names you could have picked. I'm surprised the negative associations weren't obvious to them.

Search is not a product for Google since they do not sell it. No matter how much everyone in the world might (including Google) categorize it as such. Products are sold. The only product they sell in relation to their search engine is an advertising platform. That is by definition the product.

Keeping guns stored in a vault with children present is generally a good idea if you have one or more weapons that you occasionally use. However for self defense purposes, you typically don't want to be fiddling around with a vault if someone is invading your home. I'm not commenting on the likelihood of that scenario, but it is something people consider when they own firearms.

The market could be for families with children in the house who want self defense, but haven't yet taken the plunge for safety reasons. I'm not sure how large this market would be.

Unfortunately I did not edit it.

Yes you can, if your primary motivation is making money and having a successful 'business' (business type or market is irrelevant to people with that motivation). You can definitely be successful with that strategy. But for many, loving the idea, or 'passion', is requisite for the amount of time and hard work it will take to succeed.

Why do crops need to be grown in California or 'shipped' to China? Can't these crops be provided by other states in the U.S. that are more conducive to farming? It seems California is not a great state for farming, and was engineered to be suitable. I understand the economic value to the state, but using 80% of the water during a drought? It seems like an incredible waste of resources for the financial gain of a single state.

This is the most obvious explanation. It compares your email to the list of contacts that other people have imported. If you were on their list, you may 'know' them. Pretty simple.

I would imagine that online 'get rich quick schemes' have an even higher rate of failure than most startups. Perhaps 99.99% versus 90-95%?

I suppose the sentiments of people who say "don't work hard" can vary. Many people tie working 'hard' to hours put in. I will say there are many schools of thought on this. If I am super focused and work 'hard' for 30 hours a week and enjoy my life the rest of week, how is my productivity and creativity compared to someone who puts in 70 hours? Are they really out-competing me? What does the research show on this, compared to anecdotally stating "All successful startups that I observe work hard at all hours, therefore this is THE way"? You are one of a small group of people that could make this observation. Just because that is common in successful companies, doesn't mean it is the best way.

Focusing on the first two elements I mentioned is the best way to accomplish that. Shareholders should be saying 'please ignore us and focus on the other stuff'.

It's so ironic to me that some large corporations only focus on shareholders. Focusing on customer satisfaction, and product quality leads to greater sales more than anything else. A byproduct of this is...wait for it...higher value to shareholders!

I really hope the pinnacle of AR is not as intrusive and uncomfortable (for some) as placing plastic on my eyeball (this seems to be the goto for many people). Either equip the environment, give me eyewear (goggles, then lightweight glasses), and eventually (may be awhile) augmentation implants.

I don't think they will change. These events will have an impact the way they see the world in the future.

There is nothing wrong with adding a little fun and imagination to anything in your life. I don't know how many people fool themselves, versus viewing things with a particular narrative (magic) for enjoyment.

That's exactly right. Some artists can do this, but most cannot. She is doing the right thing from a business perspective. It makes no sense for her to stay on Spotify with her clout and the demand for her music. This is pretty straightforward.

I have not seen a write up on this, but whenever I see it, it seems strange. Calling your own app 'gorgeous' or 'stunning' may come off as conceited. Those are subjective terms. If the UX is positively impacted by the appearance, call that out in the copy. I think it would be better to let your users gush over the appearance of the app using subjective terms in reviews or testimonials.

I was thinking it would be interesting to create a 'low-income life simulator' where people could be presented with all the problems of an American with low income. With limited resources, and branching scenarios, you would attempt to 'solve' your way out of it. It would be interesting to see the reaction of people who blame low-income people for their own troubles, when actually playing this game.

It's always interesting to think of humans as giant integrated microbiomes. Our bacteria is part of who and what we are.

Build whatever the market wants. Fund whatever the market wants.

"1. Admit it. You're out of the hardware game. Outsource your hardware production, or scrap it entirely, to compete more directly with Microsoft without the liability of manufacturing boxes."

Good thing they didn't 'admit it'.

I do as well. I also listen to it while driving, and charge at the same time. I was being slightly sarcastic toward Apple, that they would scrap this functionality.

No one who listens to audio through headphones EVER charges their phone at the same time. What an impossible scenario.

There seems to be very little talk of Palmer Luckey here. He started this whole thing, and all anyone can talk about is Carmack. I'm not trying to disparage John Carmack, as that would be difficult considering his awesome achievements. And he certainly brings with him expertise and reputation advantages. I just hope more people understand where this all originated.