surfaceTensi0n

That's a really great framing of this issue. Thanks!

Sometimes you have to take a bum deal, even if you know you're being exploited. This article isn't about telling Uber drivers that they're being exploited (the article references a number of cases where the drivers have sued Uber over it).

OwnCloud[0] has a password manager (Passman) that I've been thinking about.

[0] - https://owncloud.org/features/

>God forbid Trump actually does something bad

Uhm, is this a joke?

How about having an anti-Semite for a chief strategist[0]? Or selecting a woefully unqualified campaign donor to to lead the Department of Education[1]? How are you feeling about transgender rights[2]? (And let's not pretend this is just about bathrooms -- if you can't use the bathroom in public, you can't go out in public.) Maybe you care about sexual assault[3]?

[0] - http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-campaign... [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/... [2] - http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/02/23/516837258/5-questi... [3] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-havin...

Doesn't sonos already have integration with spotify? Or is that only available if you're paying for spotify?

How about Chicago?

I'm arguing that the "intended outcome" isn't always complete recovery. If a patient with terminal cancer dies, that doesn't necessarily mean that the chemo didn't achieve its intended outcome.

I don't think your example would qualify unless a real error was made e.g. the chemo killed them so there was a planning error in putting them on chemo. The truth is that many people with cancer will not survive. In those cases, chemo is not about saving their lives, just extending them.

Really? What about Jurassic Bark[0]? That episode is extremely sad and precisely about the fallout of being cryogenically frozen.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_Bark

Warren Ellis' excellent Transmetropolitan touches on this as well.

[0] - http://amzn.to/1Tzbd5T

I don't think your assertions are correct. This article[0] is a bit old (2015), but it puts the number of SUVs on the road at 35%. There absolutely are things you can do, though obviously you, personally, aren't going to solve the problem. For example, skipping meat one day a week can have pretty substantial affects on emissions[1]. Or you can get involved with a group that is organizing around climate change.

[0] - http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2016/01/usa-suv-crossover-marke... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock's_Long_Shadow

Yeah, I guess that assumption is an optimistic one. I tend to mostly think of UBI as a left/progressive issue. I only have a passing familiarity with what folks on the right think about UBI but mostly historically, not present day. Got any links handy to help me broaden my horizons?

I would say that cutting out the middle person is part of how you pay for UBI. To me the highest benefit of UBI is that people wouldn't need to work/struggle to live anymore.

Why do you think UBI would be paid for by people who need it most? My assumption is that it would be paid for with a combination of cuts to social programs (i.e. those replaced by UBI) and more progressive taxes and/or corporations. So in effect it still will be "rich folks" paying for UBI.

That's interesting. I guess I just assumed the user would have to add the bots. Otherwise how would they know what the meta-bot is capable of doing? Also, discovery of bots, especially ones that aren't "mainstream" (I'm thinking less utilitarian and more art/fun, here) or part of specific bot networks/marketplaces, would be harder. Allowing users to at least also add their own seems like it would be a useful feature.

Even before you get to burnout you get saturation where more advertising yields lower returns. There is a whole industry around advertising analytics and helping advertisers figure out how to allocate their budgets for maximum penetration without wasting money on saturated audiences.

If you're interested in some advertising theory, give Media Planning: A Practical Guide by Jim Surmanek[0] a shot. It's short and pretty accessible.

[0] - http://amzn.to/1Q7mGVe

I think you may be overthinking 3 a bit. You only need to use the new bot enough to get enough info for the normal ranking method to work. Some simple solutions:

1. When a new bot is added, always use that bot first. This assumes that the user added it intentionally despite already having bots for that function.

2. If bots are ranked too closely, pick one at random.

3. If bots are ranked too closely, ask the user which to use. Have an option for setting that as default. If you have an Android phone this should feel familiar. This is how Android handles different apps that handle the same function (i.e. what app should open when you click the mailto link).

In advertising there is a concept called effective frequency which is, essentially, how many times someone needs to be exposed to your ad before they make a purchase. This is tied pretty directly to the complexity of your message. The more complex your message, the higher the effective frequency and the more times people need to be exposed to your ad before they buy your product. Hence the tendency towards easily assimilated ideas like you mention.

Just to counter your anecdata with my own, I deleted the Uber app because I wasn't happy with their business practices (especially wrt their treatment of drivers).

Anecdotally this is absolutely something women take into account when evaluating places to work.

The solution isn't to hide the problem but it does mean that the later you try to fix your diversity problems the harder they will be to fix. As for how to actually solve that problem, you might try looking at what others (especially women) have written on the subject already:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/HOWTO_recruit_and_retain_... http://www.hiremorewomenintech.com/

Does your company's team page show the all male engineering team? Or is it otherwise possible for potential applicants to see that your team is all men? A homogeneous team sends signals to women and minorities that may have them ruling you out as a potential place to work.

>I interpreted the argument made in the OP as 'it only becomes an achievement when the computer constrains itself to the boundaries the human has by its nature'

I don't think this is a particularly accurate interpretation considering the author says:

>Now, not to diminish the achievement of the AlphaGo team, what they have done is nothing short of incredible

I think a more charitable interpretation can be found by looking at the closing paragraph which starts with this line:

>So now the interesting question (to me at least) is: How long before a computer will beat the human Go world champion using no more power than the human.

I'm pretty confused by that as well. Isn't Snapchat making their money off advertising primarily? I know they have plans to expand the kind of user data they track (including "browsing and searches beyond the app").

http://adexchanger.com/data-driven-thinking/is-snapchat-on-t...

Mine tends to be python but JS makes a lot of sense for things that need GUIs.