itsmenotyou

If you're going to interject yourself, as a company, into the political arena, you have to be all in otherwise you will get called out like this eventually.

A company selectively interjecting itself into the political arena highlights its hypocrisy, but any company having a significant public impact should be getting called out regardless of their actions in other spheres. Ethics are not an opt-in.

But both Bloomberg and the author are pursuing long term strategies.

Are they though? Where's the metric that measures credibility, or is that something that's left to human discretion? People will optimize for the metrics they're measured against, and it sounds like in this case they've chosen a metric that conflicts with the aims of a news organization.

Same here, almost exclusive FF user on OSX (Sierra) and never had any issues

That people benefited from internet shopping and delivery is not a defense of a company treating it's workers badly or evading paying taxes. Let's not pretend amazon is the only company that might have delivered those efficiencies, they were just the most successful, the most ruthless.

Obviously I can't speak for all situations but often I'll ride towards the centre or vehicular edge of the path if there is a risk of pedestrian hazards, or parked cars on the other side. People jumping out in front of you or opening car doors is all to frequent, and almost impossible to avoid, particularly in areas where cycling is not so popular.

This is a reasonable post undermined by a ridiculous last sentence. Cyclists need to obey laws but those laws should not be the same as for cars because the impacts those laws seek to prevent are not the same.

also ambiguous as had in this case suggests that might no longer be the case

Inside and Limbo do have puzzles, but they're fairly predictable, mostly just variations on things that have been seen before. They're nice diversions, and have a pleasing graphical style, but the general sentiment of your comment is pretty much correct.

What made Braid so special was that it introduced an entirely new mechanic, explored the entire possible space of puzzles for that mechanic, and explored a bunch of complimentary orthogonal mechanics at the same time.

Each person needs to set their own limits. For me this barrier was enough, but some may need more drastic barriers. I wouldn't judge people for trying to effect positive change in their life.

100% agree, even for those who are not addicts, we're not always perfectly aware of/or in control of our actions, and social media platforms are designed to take advantage of this. When I deleted facebook on my phone I'd often find myself in a quiet moment idly scrolling through my apps looking to open it again.

I get that this is an issue close to the heart of people on this site, but if you accept that this is a good law (which of course can be debated), then this is the only realistic way to introduce it. Perhaps they should have included a provision for gradually phasing out the existing cafeterias.

On a slightly off topic note, when your company gets to cafeteria size are you really a startup any more?

How is the Play Store related to the Google Seach app or to Chrome?

- They're not, and the attempt to claim they are part of a mobile "suite" is the same sort of obfuscation Microsoft used when they argued a web browser (IE) was an essential part of a desktop OS. This ruling seems obvious to me.

That really depends on what goal you're trying to achieve. If your goals are efficient distribution of aid, or tracking city sustainability across countries, it probably doesn't matter to you what the local variations in the definition of "urban" are.

Interesting perspective. I think that seeking and naming patterns "microservices", "agile", etc. is useful. It provides something like a domain specific language that allows a higher level conversation to take place.

The problem, as your identify, is that once a pattern has been identified people too easily line up behind it and denigrate the "contrasting" pattern. The abstraction becomes opaque. We're used to simplistic narratives of good vs evil, my team vs your team, etc. and our tendency to embrace these narratives leads to dumb pointless conversations driven more be ideology than any desire to find truth.

They've taken it to a whole new level in their more recent games, harmonizing the sound effects to the background music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5-YDxH6It8

"Basically if there is an internet community that's not expressily rightwing, it's community will be leftwing, so leftwing people don't need a space for themselves"

I'd argue the exact opposite. Most of the big internet forums, reddit, 4chan, gaming forums are all right leaning to greater or lesser degrees, and most of the smaller forums I've come across in many many years of wasted time on the internet follow this pattern. The lack of a left wing forum is perhaps more due to the demographics of internet forums in general and the fact that forums as a medium are inherently a little abrasive and open to trolling.

This is true, but Google isn't a philanthropic organization. They want to profit from the reflective "hipness" that comes from being based in Kreuzberg, even if by being there they accelerate the destruction of that same hipness.

Two points of contention:

1. It's not just hipsters this is affecting

2. This is not necessarily a move towards "glory". Most Berliners value the arts and cultural scene that exists in part due to low rents/cost of living and readily available performance/exhibition spaces. To see Berlin turned into another Silicon Valley would for most of us here be a major downgrade

I think the idea that people are being silenced from discussing the issue honestly is totally disingenuous. I see far more posts from people on HN about not being able to discuss the issue than I do posts actually trying to discuss the issue. I don't think I've ever seen people shut down for expressing reasonable if contentious opinions, yet somehow everyone has this idea that there can't be a reasonable discussion about it. Yes the discussion may be heated, and some more extreme viewpoints should justifiably be considered beyond the pale, but that doesn't explain the level of paranoia I see around here.

The effect of this is to reframe the debate from the actual issue at hand, into a debate about how we discuss it. The way we discuss it does matter, but the level of attention that gets around here feels like bikeshedding.

I still write 'none' in any postcode fields, and am refusing to learn my eircode. I've never had a problem getting things delivered

I think as technologists we have a natural preference for clean technological solutions that don't involve politics or messy interpersonal relationship issues. Failing to confront that whole human sphere of life leads to negative consequences everywhere, and the talk does a great job of pointing out some of the macro social effects.

On a similar note but a more localized scale I'm reminded of this talk on one of the downsides of moving to microservices being that people can avoid difficult conversations https://youtu.be/kb-m2fasdDY?t=8m2s

I was working in Microsoft about 5 years ago and Satya's not lying when they say they tried everything to incentivise app developers. It was a big focus of the company at the time. For keystone apps they tried to partner with developers doing most of the work for them. For more niche apps they ran promotions for students and independent developers giving away free phones etc. But nothing was enough to get over the problem of the lack of an initial user base.

Most Windows phone owners I know (myself included) loved the design (hardware and software), the customisability, etc. but the lack of apps ultimately made us move to another ecosystem.

FWIW I submitted because I thought the concluding paragraphs addressing the biases systems thinkers sometimes have when dealing with politics are of particular relevance here.