ralston

Was just talking with friends yesterday about this - Internet Computer getting absolutely dumped by the VCs who pumped it so hard from the beginning. Once I saw that they were headquartered in the Bay, had their entire team in the Bay, and wanted to be the “everything for everyone” computer, that was kinda my sign that this was a scam.

Only if there was a Gavin Belson in this version

The idea of the NSA googling `lemon graph` then saying "Welp, looks like someone else already has it. Back to the drawing board", is actually pretty hilarious.

I agree with the general sentiment of the article: "In order to make money, Snapchat is doing things it previously scorned"

This is particularly saddening for me because I remember back in 2011/12 (around that time) I desperately wanted an Iphone so that I could do one thing - download Snapchat. I wanted a totally new/expensive phone to do one single thing - use Snapchat. Sure I was 19, and it was slightly known as the sexting app but man oh man, there was this sort of aura of mystery surrounding it. It was literally the "coolest" app in my peer group (hell, in my age group at the time). It was soooo difficult to search for people, so you had to know their user before you could add them. It was as if the app was so public (sharing pictures that could be screenshot), yet so private (you tended to only add people you knew, and the porn accounts).

It's slightly funny to watch Evan Speigel still think that he knows whats best for Snapchat (e.g., the UI changes, monetization). He makes his changes now and tells the users to shutup and deal with it (bad idea). Now that I'm older, everyone I know still uses the app, but not nearly as much, and it's not nearly as "cool" or fun. It seems to be just another app on our phones now - not "the" app.

But in some ways I understand Snapchat's changes. Those servers, engineers, creatives, and yellow bikes cost money. You can't pay for an office lease in Venice Beach with "cool" points. However, with that said, I do think Snapchat went overboard with the monetization efforts. They followed in the footsteps of Google, Facebook, etc - not knowing that they were so much cooler and so much more fun than anyone else. And in trying to monetize, they ruined the experience, and thus the app. The "scale" thing [gives Reid Hoffman a side eye] doesn't always have to apply to everything. Sometimes just having an amazing app that does what it does is ok - the partnerships, click bait, and "publishers" be damned.

RIP Snapchat. The only app I've ever bought a brand new to device for.

> "this generation wasn't ready for this boom of communication we are living in"

I definitely think we will look back on my generation (Generation Y) as the guinea pigs for this whole "connected social world" thing. So far it's been too much, too fast, and we have done an abysmal job handling it.

The UI looks incredibly good. Is this just implemented in pure JS?

Hilarious quiz. Thanks for the laugh

> "If you got a downvote, it wasn't from me."

> "EDIT: just checked. Downvote was mine. Sorry for this comment claiming I didn't."

XD (slightly funny to read those sequentially)

While I agree with the general/intended sentiment of "Advertising is has changed from a bunch of slick white guys in suits, to tech", it might be worth pointing out that Don Draper doesn't _exactly_ have anything to do with what the author is discussing. The author implies that ad tech is ruining _traditional_ advertising, which is true on the Sales side, but have you seen some of the high PPC/CPM ads on some Youtube videos? They still _heavily_ rely on great creative. And let's not forget that Don Draper was the Creative Director - not head of Sales (which would've been Pete I believe).

I share the sentiment. Sadly it appears as if Spotify is pulling a Snapchat - "We know what's best for our users, their opinions be damned".

> As someone who has his genetic profile with 23andme (as well as my kids, wife, parents, etc)

Well there it is. You couldn't have an objective discussion about this, even if you wanted to. You (and your family) have already gone through the process. So of course you're extremely hopeful/optimistic that this works out with no problems ;)

Bingo.

> "maximize shareholder value"

> "utilizing its assets to their full revenue potential."

That's quite literally all that needs to be said here. How people fail to see the downside(s) to a large, multi-national, for-profit, shareholder-value-maximizing corporation, having access to (quite literally) their most sensitive information is simply beyond me. What do people expect GSK to say? "We plan to immediately redistribute this data to generate revenue - oh, and we do plan to do some research as well." GSK is not a charity. They do not run on merit, or "doing good things". They run on making - money. Any revenues from any type of wonder drugs developed via this 23&M partnership will be so far down the line (years, if they even come up with any winners). So in the mean time you can bet that they plan to get their ROI from this _investment_ via some type less than morally reputable activity.

I once studied for about 48 hours (off and on) for interview at a security-related startup. After 5 rounds of interviews, not a single person asked me a single technical question. Needless to say I got caught up in the modern "study for the interview" hype - a trick I hope to not fall for again.

Github issue tracking doubling as a personal blog = effin genius

Wow. I haven't laughed that hard in a while

I like this idea of setting concrete goals.

I like this idea. Limit the time you give yourself, so that in that (relatively) small amount of time, you actually get things done and don't screw around. A slight take on the (time) scarcity principle.

> "You're going to get ads. To try to fight against the very existence of advertising is quixotic to the point of being sad."

This idea is complete bologna in my opinion. People aren't trying to fight the existence of ads (e.g., movie trailers, magazines, sports ads on ESPN, maybe even the off native ad) -- people are fighting the invasive, predatory, and downright deceitful nature of the current online advertising model.

> "As a consumer, I would much prefer ads that are carefully tailed to my interests"

Don't we all want this? But when getting ads tailored to my interest comes with the price tag of having these exchanges/platforms follow me around for the rest of my internet life (or until I delete their cookies) -- the cost doesn't seem to be worth the benefit (to many, but obviously not all)

> "As a business owner, I would much rather pay $10-12 per click on one of my ads that is highly targeted to demographics, income,"

Of course. You've just exposed your vested interest in this topic. So it's not surprising that your personal opinion aligns with your business interests.

Python 3.5+

  >>> first = {"a": 1}
  >>> second = {"b": 2}
  >>> merged = {**x, **y}
  >>> print(merged)
  {"a": 1, "b": 2}

I always enjoy browsing the Twitter Engineering blog because of 1) the granular detail that they give 2) the concise, organized format that the information is presented, and 3) because I love their creativity. However, the first sentence of this article "Machine learning enables Twitter to drive engagement, surface content most relevant to our users, and promote healthier conversations. As part of its purpose of advancing AI for Twitter in an ethical way, Twitter Cortex is the core team responsible for facilitating machine learning endeavors within the company" is a complete turn off. Keep it technical. Leave the Marketing/PR out of it.

- Regular blog.twitter.com/engineering reader

I actually just now took the time to read this. A good (20-30 min) read. +1

> ven if the worst case is true, in legal terms, and you decide that you're forced to redesign the system to make the right to be forgotten (and while I'm not a lawyer I really doubt that that is a sane explanation of the GDPR), then it's just some refactoring work. It's not fundamental to the design or business model of your app (you're a messaging app, not a "sell user data app")

Exactly. Unless the business model is built around collecting and reselling user data, then (without anymore context) it sounds like this should be a (slight) refactor, not an entire redesign.

Personally, I'd just get a computer (server) and launch Flask[1] - using a single HTML landing page that sends the form (e.g., email) input to a MySQL database or something. I actually find that setting up a WordPress/Wix/Squarespace site (correctly) is harder for me to do (properly).

But if I was a little less technically adept, I'd go with Wordpress[2]

[1] http://flask.pocoo.org/ [2] https://codex.wordpress.org/New_To_WordPress_-_Where_to_Star...