twinkletwinkle

That's how you end up with echo chambers and parallel online universes.

That's the core of the author's argument. Protobuffers optimize for something besides usability and maintainability, because Google cares more about incremental performance than developer-friendliness. Which is a fine thing to care about at Google's scale, but maybe others' calculations should be different.

Technically, there might have been N>2 parties involved in the switcheroo.

Someone expecting the antenna received shirts, someone expecting X received the antenna, someone expecting shirts received X, ....

15 minutes of synchronous time waiting at the store versus 1 week of asynchronous time while you live your life though.

Tweets have the side effect of being public. Sometimes that becomes the main effect. Emails and the rest of your examples don't have that property.

Not sure about Android phones with "Ok Google" but on iOS, all of Siri's voice processing is on the device. As opposed to Amazon Alexa which sends the data to the cloud for processing.

You can't stop market forces.

Surely you can, we do it all the time. That's why we have subsidies on American sugar and tariffs on Chinese steel and higher taxes on cigarettes than on milk and... We have entire government agencies who spend all day thinking up ways to affect market forces.

The EmDrive claimed to violate conservation of momentum. To extend your analogy, instead of shining the light out the back of your spacecraft, you shined it inside the spacecraft at the back wall. It bounced around and came out as net positive thrust. Hence the extreme skepticism.

The BLS calculator (https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm) says $400 in 2013 is ~ $430 today. Seems unlikely to account for that much of the change.

No robot, no robot. You're the robot!

You're probably being sarcastic but I think the parent meant Curriculum Vitae. Making technical decisions based on what will look good on your resume instead of what's the best way to solve the problem at hand.

Who is setting back self-driving tech? Law enforcement who are trying to keep real people safe? Or Uber by being their cavalier selves about safety standards?

The market should correct that though. Those companies will (should) quickly run out of money to invest. While those who pick the ones with the right 10 year plan will (should) have the returns to continue investing.

At the absolute bare minimum, hit the brakes and reduce the impact. An attentive human driver would have at least started to hit the brakes. The software should have had plenty of time (I'm estimating a full second) to do something productive.

I believe it's the first "third-party" death.

At what point is it no longer a gift though? What if I write a contract with Boeing where I "gift" them $X million dollars and they "gift" me a brand new jumbo jet? Do you think the IRS would be interested in the specifics of that contract?

They could also call out the flip side though, right? Dropbox could negotiate deals with the ISPs to "box out" smaller competitors. Maybe it costs them upfront but it also solidifies them in the market.

I agree. Zero out the stockholders and send some executives to prison for negligence and fraud. The corporate death penalty is the only way we'll see companies take infosec seriously. If I were CEO at Transunion right now, looking at what's happened to Equifax as a result of the breach (nothing), I wouldn't spend a minute's time thinking about upgrading my security practices.

That has been Matt Levine's thesis for a while, "Private markets are the new public markets". The public markets used to be the biggest source of capital, subject to stringent rules and regulations. Now you can get just as much money from the private capital markets, and it doesn't come with all the pesky rules around reporting.

Would it be possible to do a 1-time verification, and then throw away the data? Twitter needs to see a driver's license or passport once, not keep a scan of it.

and if it isn't a fraud it will stay right where it is

I'm not actually qualified to give investing advice. But this part isn't strictly true. In a functioning market, the price could be depressed by the regulatory uncertainty. If that were the case and it was cleared up, you would see the price rise.

If 100 million of them were stolen you could also imagine that decreasing demand.

Oh, like LIBOR! That's always worked perfectly, hasn't it?

Now is better than never. Although never is often better than right now.

Isn't that true of any city? Let's permanently shut down the subway in NYC. The rest of the country will benefit from the flood of educated people looking for jobs elsewhere.

Every time you talk about building more housing in a desirable place, there's always someone who brings up the argument "But if you build more housing then even MORE people will want to move here". Nothing wrong with some empirical evidence.

Formal verification all the way down.

I'm a complete layman in this field, but mustn't it bump against the Incompleteness Theorem at some point? There's no way to prove your definitions.

I don't think so. In terms of room and resources we could just as well colonize Antarctica.

That's not correct. The bankers' fee is 7% of the money raised in the IPO, not of their total valuation.

Matt Levine addressed that one too: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-19/memory-mo... Can't see how to link into the article but if you ctrl-f Hedosophia you'll see his point.

Just because that's the way things are doesn't mean that's the way they should be. Maybe if there were harsher punishments for companies that were lax with consumer data, consumer data hacks wouldn't be so damn prevalent.