I agree. As posted here, out of context, it sounds silly. But in context:
"For those in the bottom quintile, household income in inflation-adjusted dollars has dropped sharply, from $13,787 in 2000 to $11,651 in 2013. According to the Census Bureau, 64 million Americans currently live in the bottom quintile."
It's strange wording. It would be a lot smoother stated like, "According to the Census Bureau, there are currently 320 million Americans, which means that 64 million live in the bottom quintile." They ultimately mean the same, but one version takes a lot more effort to decode.
I like the idea; it makes a lot of sense. In practice though, there are a LOT of times that it's much, much faster to communicate verbally. I feel like trying to really stick to this remote-first style might be more difficult/frustrating than it sounds.
Yes, it may make sense to talk on the phone, but I don't find that's a good strategy for first contact. Especially if people don't answer their phone or like to small talk.
there are a LOT of times that it's much, much faster to communicate verbally
If I want an answer now (if it's something that has an easy answer), and selfishly don't care about the flow of the other party, this may be true: You can prioritize a request by forcing it through synchronous voice mediums.
But even if we exclude that possible friction, it has been my experience that the belief that voice is more productive is often based upon superficial results (much as with meetings). People say some vague, uncertain things and both leave with a great feeling of accomplishment. Written communications, on the other hand, often requires more precision (if we wrote the way we spoke in such calls, the result would often be meaningless) -- you need to actually think about what you're asking, and give specifics. Not least because the medium demands it, but because this is a written, referenced, liable record, versus a call where each party can just vaguely claim miscommunication.
It's incredibly hard to study something like this, but my gut feeling (with the caveat that it's biased) is that the belief in the efficiency of voice communications is often based upon superficial results.
My understanding from my research into OAUTH2 is that most of the vulnerabilities in it are only issues in a naive implementation. They can be made secure, but it's not easy and you have to know to do it in the first place.
Doesn't OpenID Connect address those issues? I know that's what Google is using now.
I tried out google glass last fall and this matches my experience of it. It really doesn't overlay info as part of your normal view, which for me removes the AR designation. It does place information in a place that doesn't require you to move your head or look down, which is I guess where the "heads up" description comes in...but it still requires you to divert your attention, like looking at a rear-view mirror in a car. Sure, you can still see things in front of you in your peripheral vision, but that still seems less integrated than I would associate with the term HUD.
If someone is completely terrified of even attempting a free throw, then there's no sense in worrying whether they sink the shot. Until that terror is overcome, the fact that they try at all is a success.
theaigames.com does this by running the game engine and bots as console apps and communicating by sending simple commands through their input and output streams. They generally provide some "starter bots" for a couple languages, in which the message parsing is already handled for you, but they accept bots in any language.
It also simply duplicates the work of Facebook's Graph Search.
There, so far, is nothing original or creative here, and considering their intrusive, complicated "YOU MUST MAKE YOUR FRIEND JOIN" policy, I cannot endorse this extension.
This site is free to post to and is largely driven by upvotes from free accounts. There is no inherent moderation (sure there is a lot of vote ring moderation) that would prevent an article from hitting the frontpage.
where, as you can guess, {{fbuid}} is the id of the user. And yeah, you can view photos from users that you aren't friends with despite that by looking directly at the profile you couldn't view them.
I'm just guessing, but one way you could do it: get some level of access to the FB accounts of all of getpicturebook users. As long as the user whose pictures you want to see is a friend of one of those people, you can now see them.
I saw a good TED talk[1] a while ago about this topic, and the speaker made the interesting point that people use the word happiness to mean different things. You can ask someone how happy they are feeling at a given moment, or you can ask them how happy they are with their life in general. And we evaluate those two feelings in very different ways.
He mentions at one point that studies about how people feel in the moment were very correlated with money, but only up to the point that they didn't need to worry about it anymore. After that, it had little bearing on their experiential happiness. But when asked how happy they were with their lives, the more money, the better, with no limit. Which seems to me more like pride in an achievement.
I wonder if the happiness that wasn't "your own" was because part of you was happy when you thought about where you were in life, but you were also aware it wasn't really improving your day-to-day experience. Kind of a cognitive dissonance between the two ways you were evaluating your happiness.
That's somewhat accurate. I'd not seen this TED talk either, so thanks.
The day-to-day didn't really change above a certain income, and that income limit (at least for me) was pretty low. Even living in both Manhattan and San Francisco where things are expensive.
All the things I enjoy aren't really that expensive. You don't need millions of dollars to read a book, watch a movie, listen to an album, or have sex. These things are only very marginally improved above let's say, the $75K mark. You don't even need millions of dollars to go out to eat every night.
Money can give you more discretionary time. But that free time can't be spent in any way (at least none that I found) that feels rewarding while everyone else you know or care about is at work. You are still bound to rest of the world. I think that's what I like about more European, or day I say socialist, lifestyles. I need other people to spend time with. I've found hanging out with extremely wealthy people who don't do anything to be extremely boring and almost uncomfortable.
If I woke up tomorrow and suddenly had $10 million I'm not sure I'd be any happier. I'd go out and buy some new clothes I guess, a bigger apartment maybe. I'd still wake up in the morning and turn on the radio to listen to NPR. I'd still eat the same yogurt, same strawberries.
People start to do silly things with money I don't understand. Giant TVs they don't know how to work, fancy cars they never drive. Or buy some house with rooms that sit empty. I'm just like, why? Why would you do that? When people say these things make them "happy" I wonder if we actually feel completely different emotions.
The whole point of their platform is that it's not controlled by any central authority and is resistant to censorship, control, breaches of privacy, etc. The fact that even some of the most horrific and undesirable content, that which people most adamantly wish to censor, CAN'T be censored, is a strong proof that their network works.
All they need to do to is say, "Censoring this is not possible", as they seem to be doing, and that promotes their software. They don't need to talk about, approve of, or even be aware of the horrific things that ISIS does. It's enough to know that people really, really don't like what they're posting.
On the other hand, by actively attempting to censor the content, as Diaspora also seems to be doing, they're also sending the message that they don't actually truly believe in openness as a value, deep down, even though they designed their software to provide it. That actually hurts them a bit in the long run, I think.
"For those in the bottom quintile, household income in inflation-adjusted dollars has dropped sharply, from $13,787 in 2000 to $11,651 in 2013. According to the Census Bureau, 64 million Americans currently live in the bottom quintile."
Seems like a perfectly reasonable statement.