colins_pride

This is one of those ideas that seems so obviously good after the fact that it just makes one marvel

The Hustler - 1961 & The Color of Money - 1986

Both with Paul Newman.

Optically about pool hustling. Really about the processes through which the naive progress as they encounter the underbelly of reality.

Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to be able to edit a comment that has a reply

Where's Ambani at?

Does showing a large subest of the pages that point to it, default ordered by something that's roughly equivalent to pagerank, with the ability to then search within those results capture the essence of what you're getting at?

You just have to remember which books you put the money in. Every now and then I open a book that I haven't read in years and there are five 20s pressed between the pages.

Doesn't changing only one metric at a time tend to lead to getting stuck in a local maximum?

I would read even more recent stuff. I agree on Che. How about reading about Kevin Kelly and Louis Rossetto? Bob Hunter created Greenpeace out of nothing. Petraeus revolutionized the most powerful military in the history of the world. It's through a mix of ancient literature, philosophy and political economics that one gains perspective on human nature. And human nature does not, has not, and will not change. But the structure of the world evolves, making modern revolutionaries much more interesting. When I know what Kolakowski had to say about Marxism, I'm going to go move past Marx and spend more time on Popper who hasn't really been rebutted (to my knowledge) yet.

Kolakowski -> http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=...

It took a lot of self-restraint to keep me from downvoting-this-because-I-disagreed-with-it

Right, it is not tech focused, because his point is not so much Portland as the actual cultural distinction between good places for entrepreneurial people and good places for starting up.

I agree that filtering out the worst junk doesn't necesarily raise the overall quality to an acceptable level. It seems like there are two issues, which are related: [1] comments are too small-d democratic and [2] there doesn't currently exist a good mechanism for aggregating comments.

With the exception of a few places like HN, the best comments are treated about the same as bad comments. The absence of incentives leads to the absence of quality.

The other issue is related in the sense that if there was a good mechanism for aggregating comments across sites it would almost certainly serve to recognize and reward the best comments. Solve the fragmentation problem, and you get resolution on the first one for free.

Yeah, the timestamp right there next to BPC is 07-25

It's tough to feel sorry for the guy

But what if there are web-centric OSes and desktop-centric OSes?

In a world where the OS market is fragmented, centralized control and opression becomes even more difficult than it was in a desktop-centric world where one OS had huge market share.

Now that's not the case if we end up with one web-centric OS, but I don't see that happening any more than I see Bing taking over 65% of the search market without any response from Google.

He felt he had to resort to it.

You can be generally opposed to something, but accept it as the least bad option in a specific situation.

When 10% of HN really likes a submission, it goes to the frontpage. Then if 10% of HN really dislikes it, the submission gets killed.

That some stories then get un-deaded is testimony to the faultiness of the system.

One word: software

No, he hacked a very poorly designed system. In this case the moral responsibility resides with those culpable for the shameful system, not for people who need organs.

Expected utility is probably a more appropriate gauge for these decisions, rather than expected value

This is somewhat tangential, but I'm pretty sure that Google re-writes the search code ever few years.

Does opening the box kill the cat?