astro_robot

Would this analysis also extend to drinks like Kombucha which add more gut bacteria to your body?

I’ve been interested in Zettelkasten for over a year and have tried all of the apps (Obsidian, Notion, pen and paper, etc.) but I still haven’t found a good system for using it. I always feel like it’s either too much information or too little. Any tips?

Prison reform issues always make me feel so contrasted. On one hand, a lot of the people held there did awful things. The article mentions El Chapo, mobsters, drug dealers, etc. as some of the people held there. It's extremely hard to feel any sort of sympathy for those people. They've done extreme amounts of damage to communities and have done far worse to other people.

But on the other hand, no one should be sexually assaulted and beaten to death.

I believe OP is asking about the training model data for Google Duplex (i.e. did Google record calls between two people for training data).

Google is very clearly all about the money as well. It's just that they understand there is no money that will come from the "customer". Instead, it will all come from other corporations that are seeking to leverage the relationship Google has established with you. I think it is healthy to remember that companies aren't some do good no matter what it costs them. At the end of the day, all companies are trying to make money the best way possible. Frankly, I am glad that there is both Apple and Google. I think they both do well while making money.

Eh, I feel like this is pretty bland. It should incorporate a dictionary attack database. For example, "password" should be considered way weaker than any combination of letters. I would look at https://howsecureismypassword.net/ for inspiration.

I wish click bait was more well defined. In this case, I feel the original title summarizes the entire claim made in the article. Using the title "Claims made by..." sounds like it'll be an article summarizing the claims made by AI and Watson, rather than a push back on those claims.

That's actually not true in terms of the GDPR. A company, simply, only needs to have an EU citizen as a customer for the company to be regulated by the GDPR. [1]

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2017/12/04/ye...

This bothers me a lot as well. The EU shouldn't have domain over American companies. There's a reason that there isn't a ton of Tech companies in places like Germany.

Can't that be a violation in the eyes of GDPR? If they don't give users a simple button, then can't that be argued to be not giving the user the ability to export data. The problem I have with GDPR is that there's so much open to interpretation.

How long did it take for Windows 95 to be developed? It would be an interesting contrasts between Enterprise and Charitable development.

That really is some great insight into entrepreneurship. I have that same problem of wanting everything to be perfect before showing it to anyone.

He honestly isn't wrong. People use Google and Facebook everyday for free in exchange for their privacy and they are ok with that. You can ask most people and they'll say they didn't really care about Snowden's leaks. They are happy to use free software and to be under government supervision (I don't care about the inefficacy of it). Privacy really is a social norm of the past.

I just don't get it. I don't get the enormous backlash over this. Users give away their data to a company, the company sells that data to advertisers (or sells ads and targets the ads according to data), and the users can continue using the service they enjoy for free. This was the contract you agreed to when you clicked the sign up button. I don't get why people are mad at Zuckerberg and not themselves! People act like a company is supposed offer their services for free. The free services is the business model of the internet. You want to use Google Docs for free, fine they'll collect data on what you make. You want to play games for free, fine they'll display ads to you. You want to catch up with old friends, fine they'll collect data on your interests. No one is forcing Facebook users to use Facebook. You know they're collecting data on you. If you don't want them to, then don't use their "platform."

Thanks for coming back and sharing your success! It's very inspiring for me. I just graduated with a Mechanical Engineering degree and debating going back for a CSE Bachelor's degree but unsure if it would be worth it.

I get that it's hard to pass up on the money. Once you take it though it's hard to not look hypocritical. Especially since he gave them a large amount of the data that was abused.

Do employers have the same tools with email?

Wow! I love this idea. Congratulations! One question I have is what are you doing with the textbook pictures? Also, does the user categorize where the pictures came from so other people studying the same text can have additional questions?

Yea, there just seems to be so many things that aren't adding up yet. The news footage also showed a damaged bicycle but there is not mention of a cyclist in the article. I hope they release footage soon.

Do you have a guide that you can point to for the correct typesetting in LaTeX?

I have lots of problems with this article's arguments. He uses several simplified examples to show the "cost" of convenience.

When you can skip the line and buy concert tickets on your phone, waiting in line to vote in an election is irritating. This is especially true for those who have never had to wait in lines (which may help explain the low rate at which young people vote).

The youth vote has been on decline since the 1980's, long before Ticketmaster ever came along (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_vote_in_the_United_State...).

We are willing to pay a premium for convenience, of course — more than we often realize we are willing to pay. During the late 1990s, for example, technologies of music distribution like Napster made it possible to get music online at no cost, and lots of people availed themselves of the option. But though it remains easy to get music free, no one really does it anymore. Why? Because the introduction of the iTunes store in 2003 made buying music even more convenient than illegally downloading it. Convenient beat out free.

This argument blows my mind how simplified it is. There are plenty of reasons someone would prefer iTunes over Napster, not illegal and more user friendly to name the two biggest. Why not use the example of a record store versus iTunes or even Napster? To show how conveniency can beat in human experiences or make you bend your morals to steal music?

Americans say they prize competition, a proliferation of choices, the little guy. Yet our taste for convenience begets more convenience, through a combination of the economics of scale and the power of habit. The easier it is to use Amazon, the more powerful Amazon becomes — and thus the easier it becomes to use Amazon. Convenience and monopoly seem to be natural bedfellows.

This argument totally neglects that Amazon was ever a "little guy." Amazon's growth is the embodiment of American's prizing competition. Without competition, Amazon would never have been able to steal customers from Barnes and Noble, Walmart, Kroger, etc. Also, Amazon's framework allows for "little guy" shops to start up with low cost.

However mundane it seems now, convenience, the great liberator of humankind from labor, was a utopian ideal. By saving time and eliminating drudgery, it would create the possibility of leisure. And with leisure would come the possibility of devoting time to learning, hobbies or whatever else might really matter to us.

If this was a "utopian ideal", then we would not be able to read this article on the internet. There is a reason that only the wealthy elites were scientists in the past. It's because they didn't have to spend their majority of the day doing laborious tasks. Without conveniency, there would be a lot less engineers, scientists, writers, artists, gamers, etc.

This article has no leg to stand on. You can swap out the word conveniency for innovation at many points, which is completely counter-intuitive to human philosophy. I understand that the writer is saying it's nice to take things slow. To not multi-task your brain to death. What he should be arguing for is to practice patience not to wash your clothes by hand.

It seems like the article can be boiled down to 2 points.

1.) Deficit increasing projects (Infrastructure the main example) should be conserved for when the economy is weak so the Government can use it as a way to introduce money into the economy.

2.) Increasing deficits during an economic strong period requires the Government to increase the number of lenders by increasing the interest rates, which in turn puts unneeded pressure on companies to increase their interest rates.

I have a couple of confusions from this article. Isn't beneficial for the Government to increase interest rates so they are able to cut the rates during the next recession to increase borrowing? Also, why is it bad for companies to be increasing their interest rates? I am presuming that the tax cut bill will introduce more money into companies to be able to increase their rates.

I'm always worried reading the opinion articles on Five Thirty Eight since they tend to have a left-ward leaning bias. Their articles that focus on statistics are usually fantastic.

Thank you for sharing your experiences with Backblaze. I've been debating which cloud back up service to go with and your comment has started to sway me away from Backblaze. It is also disconcerting to see the employee from Backblaze only responding to the positive comments below.

A pact like that would only benefit the city with most incentives that are not tax related. Giving businesses tax incentives is a great way for smaller cities to get their foot in the door. Also, tax incentives is a common tactic by cities and countries to get businesses to move locations.

I think my comment went over your head.

Let me know if I need to explain this further.

No need to be condescending. However, I think he did have a good point. I can't see Amazon buying Whole Foods to acquire their Real Estate holdings. I also don't see those holdings being valuable in terms of a HQ2 location. I would imagine the HQ building would be similar to the one in Seattle, in the fact that it is downtown and not near an area with college graduates. Also, that building would most likely be a large office building which would be out of place in a area like that.

Honest question. I'm unsure what the danger is in letting these companies acquire data on us. We get a lot of benefit from using their products for free. Why should I care about giving my data to them as a cost of admission?