imaadrashied

Seems like you're only thinking of one piece of the puzzle, which your Android phone sending RCS thanks to a carrier allowing you to. Doesn't address this part of the problem:

"Even if Google could magically roll out RCS everywhere, it's a poor standard to build a messaging platform on because it is dependent on a carrier phone bill. It's anti-Internet and can't natively work on webpages, PCs, smartwatches, and tablets, because those things don't have SIM cards. The carriers designed RCS, so RCS puts your carrier bill at the center of your online identity, even when free identification methods like email exist and work on more devices. Google is just promoting carrier lock-in as a solution to Apple lock-in."

The underlying question here is: Should Facebook be forced to obey the government of a country in which it operates or be an agent for US values and ignore the government of any specific country in which it operates.

I don't think there's a simple answer here and the default should likely be 'listen to government, regardless of how terrible they are' because we want to respect other countries' sovereignty as we want our sovereignty respected.

Might be a specific issue for this restaurant. Tried googling several restaurants in SF that are open at the moment and the link from google to the delivery company goes directly to a page for that restaurant, not a generic page for the type of food.

I might be simplifying too much, but I would be surprised if more remote work didn't catch on. A decentralized workforce is easier to control in some aspects that are incredibly attractive to corporate leaders.

Fewer spontaneous and f2f interactions between people makes it easier to:

1) Ensure folks are focusing primarily on work instead of anything else associated with being a part of a company

2) All hierarchical decisions (promoting / not promoting) can be done without much personal interaction so turns employees more into school children where grades on certain things determine moving up or not

3) Easier to fire folks if you don’t get as close to them and if they’re not right there in front of you

Not advantageous for small/mid-size companies with strong cultures. Advantageous for small/mid-size co’s with weak cultures. Large companies obviously benefit, surprised more don’t go remote.

Agreed - I do miss the days of Netflix's star ratings. I would be able to browse content I wouldn't necessarily be drawn to, but would consume anyway because, 'oh wow - tons of people gave it a great rating.'

I get why they've moved to 'this content matches [x%] to your tastes', but I'm watching similar stuff over and over again without any insight into whether other content is also good, unless I want to spend hours pouring through IMBD and Rotten Tomatoes.

"And the best thing reading philosophy teaches to the non-academician is how to think with structure and method, avoiding dogma and bias, and embracing scepticism. Reading the dialogues has changed my life entirely because of that."

Completely agree - I find my philosophy degree being most useful in what you've laid out and also in empathizing (or at least understanding) with what someone else is saying, especially if that person is bad at communication or cannot express themselves as clearly as they'd like.

The older philosophers tended to take the reader on a mental journey / through a mental exercise, and not always a clear one, so you're forced to extrapolate what's important from what seems to be nonsensical stream of consciousness.

I come across folks at work all the time who can't really explain what they're saying, but I'm able to extrapolate based off a few key words / phrases. It's a valuable skill for product discovery / design.

Caveat here is that one can develop the above skills without philosophy so it's not a requirement to read old philosophers, but rather one path among many.

I don't know if the need to have the entire program written out is most important.

The best candidates I've hired show aptitude to ask the right questions and, in return, ask probing questions about what led to our decisions, have we thought of [x], this is how [x] might work, what about [y] competitor or space within our industry, etc...

The most memorable interviews I've come out of / been a part of are the ones in which the candidate leaves me thinking or scratching my head about why we're doing what we're doing and whether they'd be a great fit to help us achieve our goals.

This is all from a product management perspective so might not be the same across the board.

Oh man this makes me nostalgic.

Had a similar experience while taking a break from studying. Picked a random row of books only to realize it was entirely dedicated to genital reconstruction and sex-changes. Being in college, my curiosity was piqued. I may never unsee some of the pictures in those books.

Edit: Spelling

This isn't surprising because humans will do what they're incentivized to do (speaking mainly in a professional setting here).

Might be effective to add a measure to the transparency that shows something to the effect of, "likelihood to perform life-saving and risky procedures." Therefore a high win-loss with a lower risk threshold would be weighted lower than a so-so win-loss with a higher risk threshold.

I'd say (at least) three ways:

1) Docs using it to double check themselves before diagnosing patients, thereby, hopefully, limiting their liability.

2) Patients getting second opinions from Deep Patient and suing the previous doc for not catching a disease.

3) Patient getting diagnosed at a very late stage of an illness and patient + family thinking earlier docs should've caught disease. Hire lawyer, lawyer runs through Deep Patient simulation, Deep Patient identifies illness, DP identification used to prosecute earlier docs. I guess kinda like 2.

I think this was/is a smart move for Nokia.

They were right to predict Samsung would be the major Android player.

Instead of competing against a company that already had a major lead and essentially becoming one of the smaller fish in a larger Android pond, it's taking a bet on becoming a large fish in a smaller pond that has very real upside potential. I stress potential because we've all been a little disappointed with Microsoft's latest maneuvers, but there's still a chance for the company to turn it around.

At the end of the day I respect such a great risk being taken at a massive firm (you don't see a lot of that these days). Nokia still believe a third ecosystem can be a very real option for smartphone consumers and they want to be that third option. Takes guts. I'm all for a little more competition.