manxu

I remember when they switched map links to (ew) Apple Maps. That was a huge downer.

I used to work for one of the big Internet companies when we came out with the Personals product. We poured over the data constantly, mostly because the thing was so insanely cheap to make (2 devs, 1 ued, 1 pm, 3 months) and so insanely lucrative.

Basically, there were two types of sites: data/matrix driven where you could get a ton of results and filter them as you saw fit, and algorithm driven, where you would get a select number of profiles presented that you could either interact with (swipe right) or deny (swipe left).

The first kind generally suffered from a very simple problem: people don't meet and like people because of data. We couldn't figure out why people like people, because we didn't see that part of the equation, but we saw that the data driven approach pushed people into being too selective on the data, ending up with really unrealistic expectations, and correspondingly with people increasingly lying to match those expectations. We could tell both, because we could see the filters (e.g. the scary number of men in their 50s having 25 as max age for their dates) and the distribution of the data, that didn't match any normal distribution (e.g. the remarkable doubling of people with ages ending in 9).

The algorithm-driven approach suffers from doom scroll syndrome. Since you are separated from the perfect person for you by a bunch of "losers" in the way, you scroll over them quickly to get to the good stuff. Nobody gets the time they deserve, and while the algorithmic approach doesn't allow you to filter unrealistically, it gives you impatience and makes the unrealistic expectations worse.

Unrealistic expectations breed lies. If only the impossible is good enough for you, only the liar can deliver.

I left as we were discussing a blended approach: the algorithm presents a grid of potential mates it selects for you, but you can see them all (a thumb, at least) and interact with each independently. Then the company hit trouble and Personals was frozen in time.

My takeaway: for a change, capitalism and monetization are not the core problem. People's sense of entitlement is.

And that, children, is the reason why all computers think of 1970 as the first year time existed. I am writing this 1748793147 seconds after 1/1/1970.

UBS Group AG analysts said in a recent note that investors’ shift away from US assets will channel €1.2 trillion ($1.4 trillion) into Europe’s stock market over the next five years.

I have a sense American oligarchs will regret their support of this administration for a very, very long time

Well, that makes perfect sense. After all, America is drowning in an overpopulation of competent health workers! /s

Oh, the joys of being old! I remember the GWB years, when PBS was pressured into a Both Viewpoints era and suddenly they had "experts" extolling the virtues of Trickle Down Capitalism.

If you stand for something, like PBS has, it's always a terrible idea to cater to the opposite. Liberal law firms that settled with the Trump administration have found that out, Target is finding it out, and PBS might do, as well.

Just as a reminder: this is the man that claimed he could fix world hunger for a measly single-digit billions, then chickened out when people pointed out he had the money.

He didn't solve world hunger, and instead massively contributed to making the world a worse place.

The worst thing about it: he probably could have solved world hunger with single-digit billions of dollars. He just didn't care to do that.

It's so weird that we have to go through hoops and loops to get rid of this stuff! I was sick of my Android responding to a long press of the power button, meant to shut it down, with a Gemini prompt. Took me an hour to figure out I can't get rid of the function, but I can switch back (for now) to old style Google Assistant.

If you have to force functionality down your users' throat despite them not wanting it, you already lost. Gemini is Google's Clippy, just less iconic and more also-ran.

It's definitely a setback, but you learned two important things:

1. You can get an entry level job
2. You need a place where you can work

The ONLY reason it didn't work out this first time is because 1. and 2. were not sufficiently close in time. I wouldn't have known either (and now I do, so thanks for the learning experience!). I'd probably start looking for a similar position (maybe with a company that is less weird about infrastructure, although you only know after you get the job) AND an office-type place at the same time.

I would guess a lot of the less-than-five stars motels would be happy to give you a heavy discount if you only use your room during the day and don't need to stay at night, ever. They are really selling the nights.

It must be incredibly frustrating to be in your current position, but I am really happy that you found a way to make it better. I think you got the right solution for you, it's just a matter of iterating it until it sticks. I was in your shoes and I wish I had had as clear a plan as you have.

I sort of have a sense this is not going to end well for Musk. I get this sense of déjà vu from the days of Michael Jackson.

We may very well in the future, of course! But maybe at the rate technology develops, it could be smarter to start working on it when the threat becomes visible.

I venture the uneducated guess that satellite to satellite might be the next space defense frontier ahead of space to ground.

I think it's because the threat model against which a Golden Dome defends is just not that plausible any longer. Given the distances, a space-based ground defense can only protect from long-range attacks, like ICBMs. Unlike in the 80s, the technology to intercept and destroy ICBMs safely is now probably there, but the threat of all out nuclear war is much reduced.