cargo8

TBF he said it would be an open protocol, not open-source. That being said, obviously Apple still never followed through...

Duo and WhatsApp have significantly better video quality (especially off of Wi-Fi) than FaceTime

Eh not really true as they've explicitly stated every single swap / transaction for crypto should be reported vs having any sort of threshold

This is a really really powerful concept – are you hiring?

It's really odd that this is making the media rounds now, granted this is the most fair headline I've seen on it to date.

The fact that Focals v2 were being cancelled, and that all customers would receive refunds for their existing purchase was announced with the acquisition months ago...

I love this, but it struck me in the opening paragraph how similar it is to the challenges around training AI on higher-level abstraction goals, with tons of examples of AI's basically "cheating" and passing information discretely to itself to yield answers, rather than actually solving the problem as the human had hoped!

Also - that's not the reason. The reason is because Android is open source and Google allows sideloading.

I don't think Google allows Amazon to distribute their app store through the Play Store, so you have to sideload it.

Doesn't solve the distribution problem anyway – the app stores are the shelf

Sounds very interesting, been in the space for a bit now and eager to learn more. jason@jasonmow.com

Is real estate still a "great investment" in China when you can't own property but merely buy 75 year leases? (this is my understanding of how real estate works at least in Shanghai)

If you don't own your keys, you don't own your crypto.

That's literally the point. Because of reactions like yours (specifically that last line re-paraphrasing), anyone on the conservative spectrum is now afraid to express their opinions or reveal such information

It's a little bit different if your job is to design and build a product intended to be arbiters of free speech, and the govt is pressuring your industry and company specifically to maybe take a heavier hand in moderating... In that case your job probably largely involves thinking through and talking through these issues with open-minded peers, wherein lies the rub

Collateral is staked ahead of time

You are right, however that is a systemic bias in equal opportunity – not representation.

Foot in the door is a huge step, and it's totally okay for companies to push initiatives that allow more minorities to get their foot in the door / exposure to the company and industry. It's not okay for them to push that agenda in assessment to reach better distribution numbers in representation.

They do this already at a fairly large scale, for example the BOLD internship and development program where the goal is to "expose historically underrepresented students in this field to career opportunities in the industry." [https://www.google.com/about/careers/students/bold.html]

These programs are fantastic, and I think a great (albeit no silver bullet) strategy to grant greater OPPORTUNITY to underrepresented groups who may never be exposed to CompSci & Tech industries.

Things that are discussed in this article (if true) are clearly about reaching equal REPRESENTATION more than opportunity – and yeah, that's very disappointing since at the end of the day the only way to do that with immediate gratification is discrimination. (pipeline & societal problems don't get fixed overnight)

Yes and no – Google is (used to be, at least) particularly stringent about requiring a degree moreso than other tech co's

No one is arguing it's not – but most people agree its warranted given Amazon's previous anti-competitive behavior, i.e. de-listing competing Google + Apple streaming boxes + Nest products + never offering integration of Prime Video on the Apple/Android TV in a clear move to promote FireTV + Prime membership

Even with the Prime Video app it does not let you Chromecast which is like :-\

Fiat money is just a concept made up by governments, so no – the resource is not finite, and I think that's the crucial point in lots of these conversations. Innovators create and deliver value to large populations of people and are rewarded for it economically – this is supposed to be fair, and arguably is "the american dream" because the premise is that they are being "fairly" compensated for the overall value they've delivered to society at large.

The closer you get to individual transactions as examples, the easier it is to ignore that it's not a zero-sum game. I think we all agree we're probably paying too much for an individual iPhone X or whatever, but few disagree that the creators of these devices deserve at least the amount of wealth that their creations "gave back" to society through value, convenience, efficiency, and so forth on a society-level scale.

It's been years since Apple has started sitting back and raking in the money by letting other players mostly test out technology on smartphones before they adopt.

My only major concern with iPhone X is that I don't think FaceID is actually a valid replacement for TouchID from a usability/convenience perspective – I'll leave security concerns to the experts. There's just too many situations where it will definitely be slower and/or someone next to me wants to use my phone while I'm driving, etc etc

Probably internal – when I interviewed with them in the past an internal recruiter (I was familiar with through friends / on-campus stuff) gave me some super dumb technical questions on the "initial screen". Very basic pseudo data structure stuff, but still. It was obvious she was trying to map the words I had said to some pre-provided solution.

They should probably stop doing that.

I think that her "infinite loop" theory was her perception of the anecdote around hiring at her own startup. It does seem conceivable, but yeah obviously data is light here.

Good point on how the whole interview process is a crapshoot anyway. Hadn't really thought about that aspect, but obviously is a huge opportunity for subliminal bias since it is how it is.

I was being a bit of a devil's advocate, altho didn't quite get the responses I hoped for. I suppose I didn't phrase it quite right since I don't have significant knowledge about this case other than the article.

It seems like the arrest is a bit aggressive, but so is the response – clearly out of fear and uncertainty of the govt and general time we live in. Hopefully more transparency will bring light to the allegations and reassure the innocent of their safety

If I write open source code for research, share it with the community, and someone wants to license it for "further research" and pays me – am I responsible if their adapted software is then used / stolen / re-applied to kill people or hack a bank?

In this scenario I both wrote and explicitly sold the software with no idea of what the later applied tech would do. The computer laws referenced in the article seem to require direct knowledge of malicious intent of the software in the sale.

Ah cool, thanks missed that. So it's an Amazon branded PO Box :)

Is this just Amazon Locker rebranded?

Well they're not really predictions so much as a phenomenal data set tracking the industry and consumer behavior in relevant markets. Draw your own hypotheses / conclusions :P

Lean supply chain management and contract manufacturing is likely the big upcoming trend in this space, as it is easier and cheaper than ever to have experts create the thing that you want or source the components or whatever.

I think the QA as well as fit & finish of 3D printing is not high enough yet (and unclear whether the investment to get to that point is worth it) for mass produced consumer goods. More likely it will spawn a big uptick in hardware ventures (already has) since it also massively reduces the cost of prototyping and can reduce the cycle time of early modeling and prototyping.

Because mods aren't paid and are generally put in power by their specific community to uphold the communally agreed upon standards and rules.

Admins are paid employees of a company (reddit) that provides a platform for communities and discussion. If the platform itself is biased, then it is not really a platform but rather a specific media / viewpoint forum.

The distinction matters.

CEOs don't get to break the rules just because. These kinds of restrictions exist to protect consumers (and their data) and the business legally from liability, etc.