sam_lynx

Hm, I change my mind, you are correct.

? I’m confused how your comment relates to mine. Did you post on the wrong thread?

Cool, thanks for the explanation.

Cool :)

Yes, that is why he used a burner account.

Did it a few times, all I got were ads and dead links. Maybe implement a filtering system?

Always wanted for someone to make a copy of Apple’s products but without their insane level of control over your device. Looks like someone is finally going to do it :)

Watched that guy heavily a few months ago. He makes great explanations, really breaks things down so laymen can understand it.

I’m new here, so this seems like a valid criticism to me — but judging by the number of downvotes, it may not be. Can someone explain why this comment is incorrect?

Well, he dismissed Bright’s argument as a random pet peeve from people who haven’t written a line of code in C before, so yes, I do think he said it explicitly.

Part of what makes YouTube’s recommendation algorithm so powerful is that it doesn’t necessarily have to be very good. I scrolled through my recommendations just now and only found one video after scrolling through fifteen that I was interested in watching — but that’s fine, since it’s easy to decide if you might like a video based on its title, thumbnail, and creator.

However, if YouTube was as good at recommending books as it was recommending videos, I would never use its book recommendation algorithm. You necessarily have to get almost every book recommendation “correct” for it to be seen as actually useful by the user.

I think this could work, although perhaps in combination, not replacement, with the traditional ranking system. The book on the bottom of somebody’s list isn’t necessarily a bad one.

What? You are suggesting that a person is unable to share his personal experiences and opinions unless their employer agrees? Obviously this may damage the company, but personally I have no sympathy for a company worth billions of dollars who is not known for their fair treatment of workers at all. I see nothing immoral in the original commenter releasing this information.

True -- after all, it is still authoritarian, the only difference is that this authoritarian government seems to care for the wealth of its citizens (although not much else.)

Definitely going to check this out. Thank you!

I think "failed" is subjective, what we should really be looking at is whether they provide for their citizens the best -- which democracy does.

Eh, as they said in the article: "Part of the mythos of Lee Kuan Yew is that he succeeded as an authoritarian where so many others have failed." Singapore is the exception; authoritarian governments are almost always bad for the people otherwise.