absolutelyrad

Anyone who cares about "free speech" should move to epik.com for domains.

I want infrastructure providers to be neutral, and allow whatever is allowed under the law. Not Twitter, FB they're free to censor.

But the App Store/Play Store, cloud providers should be neutral.

Take the bare minimum measures to prevent chaos, don't overreach your hand.

Thought experiment: can we have a standard TOS for centralized services?

Building the next Facebook? Legally bind yourself that you'll always provide API access and this right cannot ever be taken away to the extent permitted by the law.

Maybe we need a standardization for centralized service TOS like MIT/GPL etc are for OSS. So people can decide more easily which centralized services to use.

I'm so happy for you!

There's a company that is not public but working in this space, I cannot recall it's name. They use NLP to diagnose patient condition by ingesting raw information/text from medical books/papers. You describe how you feel and any other information that you have in an article, and it gives out possible conditions and prescription.

AFAIK, they still recommended that you go to the doctor, but you could use it as an extra to check the diagnosis yourself.

But their point was they have all the data coming out in new papers, and the system studies it constantly and is always kept up.

The answer is chrome web store/firefox store and adblock/tracker block. They offer a hint into a more free future.

Imagine if adblock wasn't allowed on those stores. Today the equivalent is alternative clients to Facebook not being allowed on iOS and the App Store.

Look at YC startups like motion being built on top of the web. They are building on top of the network effects of gmail/google/facebook/slack etc. We aren't allowed any of that on mobile. Had they been allowed more access to the mobile OS's, they could be a very successful company. We haven't even touched the tip of cross OS productivity integrations.

If you're serious about this question.

The the answer is: a competitor could build their services on top of Facebook. They wouldn't have to start from scratch. Independent client's mean if the one user trusts you with their data, you can provide them a bigger value.

Today you cannot innovate on top of Facebook. Their network effects mean if your service is superior, you need to beat the network effects first.

And Facebook cannot reasonably offer independent access because: Cambridge Analytica.

Independent client's do what they want without Facebook taking a hit on their reputation. No one blames apple for the crimes committed using their phones/computers do they?

I'd argue that if apple didn't have a monopoly, we'd have stores that catered to privacy conscious people far earlier.

If apple didn't restrict the OS so much, you'd have people making their own Facebook clients, wouldn't have mattered if Facebook liked it or not. The monopolization of Facebook's control on personal connections is partially because of closed OS's. And Apple's iOS is one of the most responsible OS's that gave rise to Facebook's data monopoly.

Had it been like Windows, there wouldn't be a way that Facebook could've maintained their monopoly.

Sure. I'd be interested.

> And you have a strange definition of ethics given the amount of IP piracy going on with the blessing of occidental politicians.

What IP did Huawei steal? 5G?

If the math Olympiad is racist then so is fashion modelling and NFL.

And I called it ethnicity/descent already.

What can congress do? They're already blacklisted. The only thing left is to shoot your own foot. Maybe avoid that?

I've seen nothing logical that came out of Trumps silly blacklisting except cashing out on the reputation the US had for pennies on the dollar. China is destined to be Europe and the US combined in term of tech. Time will tell if their culture causes problem for them.

Smart high intelligence people + strong work ethic + competition and not rent seeking by incumbents. They're only second to Israel in terms of average human intelligence.

Every top math Olympiad participant representing the US is of Chinese ethnicity/descent, this should be noted.

Someone forced me to the same, now I'm forcing others. It works.

This explains why some people were forcing me to move to signal for the past 2-3 weeks.

Glad I made the transition, you should too.

PiedPiper for machine learning?

There was distribution that costed precisely $0 in middle man fees. Software downloaded from the web (if you already have the audience, the distribution costs are marginal on the web).

Then Apple decided to cut it out. And also cripple web apps so they can't even be alternatives properly. Can you build a Mail app on the web? No. Apple didn't add the required features to Safari that developers could build on top of. And Chrome/Firefox/Edge did add them and they work. However on iOS, Apple does not allow them, instead they're forced to use Safari under the hood with Chrome/Google branding sprinkled on top.

Tell me how much publishers pay to distribute on Windows from their websites? Or the WebApps that don't need to be installed? Apple provides little value as a middle man.

The just wanted to be parasite middlemen and they don't deserve to be. They're the mafia.

Go for them under anti-competition clauses. And if there is indication that they have colluded, start trust busting on both. Google is already not trustworthy. They colluded with Facebook already. And Apple colluded to lower wages with other tech companies.

It is entirely reasonable to think that this is anti-competitive and hinders innovation.

The fact that 30% app store tax exists and both stores (App Store by Apple and Google Play Store) have somewhat similar strategies highly indicate collusion going on. Apple only changed it for people making under $1m a year after people got mad and they got sued by Epic Games or they knew Epic Games was coming for their asses. But they know that majority of their revenue comes from pubs making over $1m a year which they still tax at 30%.

Then the fact that they hold Safari backwards to cripple the adoption of PWA's (Modern Web Apps). They don't allow real competitors to Safari either. The competitors that exist like Chrome or Firefox are just Safari under the hood on iOS.

iOS and Apple have single handedly crippled the innovation on mobile web. Safari is the modern Internet Explorer but Apple forcing people to use it directly or indirectly and not allowing real competition on iOS.

This is straight up anti trust material and they should face scrutiny for it. Sleepy lawmakers should wake up.

Not only does it harm American businesses, but also businesses across the world.

Why does the north have such a low birth rate? I thought this was a phenomena exhibited by women's rights/education and increase in wealth. All of which the north lacks.

"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.

Why did the author delete the story?

> OpenStreetMaps will become a serious-serious contender to Google Maps

Maybe not this year, but I can see this happening over the next five.

Yeah, I had women math teachers that sucked. Made it boring. Then I got a math teacher who was a guy with deep voice. Dude talked too much political stuff but he taught too good, it was like he had my attention. I didn't even study for the exam except for the last 10 minutes and aced it, his lectures were enough, I got everything in a single class, no revision. We used to have internationally accredited exams and everyone taught by him used to do well for some reason.

Before him I didn't care about math at all. I only learn when it's a guy teaching me for some reason. I can't focus on a woman if she's teaching, I get bored and started thinking about what to app to make.

But not every guy teacher was the one I could focus on. He was the guy with the deepest voice, for some reason it didn't let my attention drift away.

Before that, I sucked in Chemistry, until some guy taught me. I don't know how that worked but did.

Then some guy taught me physics but his voice wasn't manly, and I started sucking at physics after that.

So I'd say as a guy, I was almost always better taught by men. Women (young or middle aged) bored me away from the subject. And that used to reflect in the batch performance for almost every guy.

Girls weren't impacted by it at all. They got good grades either ways man or woman.

I realize now how horrible it all sounds, but trust me I tried.

> I recall my students used their Chromebook to play this bubble game where their bubbles had to chase and eat other students' bubbles: very benign and strategic, and they used area-numbers from the bubbles to strategize.

Agar.io?

We'll see if Chinese movies manage to make it big outside China. The day a Chinese movie becomes as secretly popular as fifty shades is the day I'll accept that they have proven themselves to be on an equal footing culturally.

There will be no change. Western ideals triumph all the eastern ones in terms of attractiveness. They're like drugs, unsustainable (especially with consumption), but everyone sees them once and gets hooked. The U.S. rules the western ideals.

I don't see China having the influence that Hollywood had. There will not be a Chinese equivalent of McDonalds, KFC etc either with their own food that people of other culture would buy.

What we might see is a rise of preferential trade agreements without the WTO. China is catching up in semiconductors and aeronautics. It's a matter of time, and I would give them a decade.

But the west will still rule in terms of art and culture. East/Asia will rule with technology.

And this will be the century of intense competition. Evan Spiegel already said it and his assessment, I think he is right on mark. Yet to be seen if it turns out to be another century of humiliation for China or is it America's turn (yeah it's harsh remarks, but you can't really cover it up anymore).

No guaranteed wins for either side. Whoever gets complacent loses.

Yeah, I'd give 30(realistically 15) years tops for AGI. And then we'll call it the end of history.

That is if we don't kill ourselves by making stupid mistakes.

Exactly. And people who want wealth inequalities to fade away, can they explain people who have better looks due to better genetics. Then they carry for their next generations. Maybe also force attractive people to mate with less attractive ones so these inequalities also go away? Sounds insane doesn't it? This is equally insane idea.

This is just unfair to everyone. It is wrong, immoral, unethical to tax the wealth of people, if you don't account for other inequalities in life. The inequalities will persist, just that when assets, money isn't that medium of storage, people will only value looks and other things even more, because that's how you'd effectively store your wealth, untaxable. The genes of the people become the platform for storing wealth in that kind of world. The only place where breaking or taxing people' wealth is agreeable is when they become too powerful and above governments. No other excuse.

This is something seriously overlooked.

Why do some guys get all the girls and some don't. Isn't it unfair to those guys that they have their needs emotionally met just like any other successful humans? If you are so fair, fix these problems. Everyone has feelings, and it's not their fault that they're bitter about it.

Is it those men's mistake that they were born in this world? And they couldn't even do anything to rectify that problem when the baseline is so high to reach?

Everyday I read about these people and it makes me sad. Thankfully I don't have any of those problems, but I can't overlook those who do have them. Atleast they'd have a chance in todays world had they pushed themselves and become wealthier.

This isn't only about men, but women too.

When you save money and forgo pleasures, you aren't supposed to be penalized.

Google has information via Google Location Services. Have they stopped publishing public stats?

Look out for Kylin OS, it's being created by some Chinese company with that same premium feel. Not complete yet, but works out of the box. I'd probably switch to it once it just works.

The problem takes care of it's self when those people who cannot have kids' can have because their hard work has value. Because current welfare society over values looks. Undervalues other aspects of humans.

This is unethical, and will bite your decedents back in the ass even if it doesn't bite you. You think your so good looking? Imagine if your grand son was in that place where he wasn't that good looking. Would you want him to end up like that? Is that really fair to him.

Aren't we supposed to make the world a better place? When we realize that some things are wrong?

You're doing every man who does hard work injustice. You can defer the problem by importing women from 3rd world countries, but for how long?

Not only is it unethical, but immoral.

Remember, no matter how privileged you are, there is no guarantee that your decedents will have the privilege'. Even if you're the most selfish man/woman, it's in your interest to advocate for it.

There's no woman/man who is a better human except for their character. We need to put incentives for these traits in humans. Not discourage them.

Be careful what you wish for. 25% of Norwegian men never father children, and 15% of Norwegian women too.

So in the end men who never father children are being taxed for other men's children. Is that moral?

The easier, ethical way to increase fertility back is to bring morality back to society. If you make sure your kids are raised near other people like you, you cheat the system that the most advantaged people in society have (better looking, better finances etc). Why isn't the character of a person a valuable trait? It's because people who have those traits take it for granted, and those with other traits want character as a trait to be devalued. Imagine if every man would taught their daughter/son/wife to judge people by their character. Taught that loyalty is a virtue.

And then only let their children hang out with people who also value those with character.

Current society is bad for men and women. Men who would also want sons? What if your son is ugly? Women who would want both daughter and son? Can they ensure that their son will have a nice life? They cannot. Even if those women/men go for someone with model tier looks, they will likely be less good lookin than them. And someone else will always be better looking than them. Better finances than them.

There is no winning for anyone longer term like this. It doesn't matter if you're the richest person. Or the best looking one. Someone must lose in today's game. And if you don't lose today, someone from your descendants will. Why?

Humans are intelligent enough to understand these things, and we're likely the end of prime biological evolution. The next step is obviously not humans. What's there to fight for?

Nothing. Maybe bear the fruits of the collective hard work ancestors have done? As peter thiel said, competition is for losers. Stop competing in a rat race.