jazzdev

Scott's essay is thought-provoking, but I don't think it's relevant. The essay is about

"How can I enjoy X when there are people suffering somewhere?" The question in this thread is

"Should I stop developing new thing X because some people might be harmed even if a greater number of people might be helped?"

This reminds me a sexual harassment training class I had to take at a startup decades ago. [They actually called it that too, like they were training us how to sexually harass!] We learned about something called the equal opportunity jerk defense. If you could prove you were an asshole to everyone, then you weren't guilty of sexual harrassment.

In the last few weeks Claude (Sonnet) has told me “I don’t know” 3 different times. That seems like the solution to hallucinations and it’s already happening.

I think Poe's Law applies to Shakespeare too. I recently saw Taming of the Shrew and people are still arguing about whether Shakespeare was endorsing Petruchio's starvation of Katherine to make her obey him. Or was that sarcasm, actually condemning that behavior? If only Will had used a smiley face!

YouTube seems less of a social media site than Facebook and Twitter to me. But maybe that's because I mostly use it for educational content also. I want a good recommendation engine, but I don't care what videos my friends and neighbors are watching.

Makes me thing I need a new email template

"Try this one thing: ....

If you are a detail-oriented person, you could also save us both some time and try these things also ..."

A post to HN with a query for how to get in touch with a16z engineering probably would have been fruitful.

What biased agenda do you see in this article?

Yes, it's not guarantee, but it is one good data source for predicting the future.

See Rule 5 in https://hbr.org/2007/07/six-rules-for-effective-forecasting

TLDR: "The future is bigger than we can imagine.

Change is equally hard to comprehend. Two centuries ago, 80 percent of the U.S. population worked on farms. If you told one of those farmers that in 2024 barely 1 percent of the population would work on farms, he'd have a difficult time imagining what the other 79 percent of the population would do with their time. If you then tried to explain what an average income could purchase in the way of a Netflix subscription, airplane transportation, and a car, he'd think you were insane. The same principle applies to imagining life 50 years from now."

Richard Hanania's substack is intellectual, non-partisan and conservative.

> If an insider with confidentiality obligations shares material non-public information with a person who has no confidentiality obligation, and that person trades on that information, that would be insider trading.

Is this transitive? If the person with no confidentiality tells a 3rd person and that 3rd person trades, is that still insider trading?

Rent seeking implies using laws or market power to profit without providing any value. Depending upon your assets and investments, you may well be providing value to companies and society.

I'm not recommending this as a strategy, but someone I trust told me this story.

They were a hiring manager. Candidate looked good on paper. Invited for on-site interview. At the on-site, the candidate didn't want to answer questions. They just stated that their race and gender were discriminated against in this field and if they weren't offered the job, then they would sue. My friend consulted with their boss and the lawyers and they decided to offer the person the job. They were qualified and they turned out to be good at the job.

TLDR:

These new rules could put T-Mobile's Binge On package on the chopping block. This deal exempts YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Sling, ESPN, SHOWTIME, Starz, and others from counting toward the data cap on all T-Mobile phone plans.

Cox Communications' "Elite Gamer" service could also be cut.

When net neutrality was introduced, people feared that ISPs would become a major source of censorship. That hasn't happened. Why revive the rules now?

What do you read between the lines here? TPG thinks New Relic management isn't doing a good job and TPG thinks they can restructure the company and make it significantly (>15%) more profitable?

Yeah, that was interesting take... that the actual smart kids are there to make the rich kids look smart.

I think getting rid of this will cause more disparity in the outcomes. Rich parents can afford tutors and poor parents can't, so poor kids come out even worse off.