But why would I want to take a photo that needs to be "unlocked"? My phone already has a camera on it, and I can already not share photos. I genuinely don't understand what this app is doing.
I don't think it should be about skipping the (or one of) the hard parts. It should be about guidance through it and helping founders understand how to read the signals coming in. Some startups think they're doing it, but they're really not.
A service to push founders through it would be great.
Caltrain is already over capacity at peak times. I agree that there needs to be more accommodation near public transport, but I think they'd be better off building more public transport first!
The south bay (south of Diridon) is poorly-served by Caltrain - 3 trains each way per day, weekdays only, no bullets. I think it'd make a great SV extension with its cheap(er) real estate and easy access to SF. I know a lot of SV types with families who are in Morgan Hill/Gilroy because they can actually afford decent family housing without spending 50%+ of their income on it.
I'm wondering the same. Coming from the UK, home delivery for groceries is old news. Is it the geographical size of the US that's making this a harder problem over here (US)?
they do 1 hour delivery, and you can combine orders from several shops. whether that matters for most shoppers, I don't know. Their markup is more than UK food home delivery
Did you know there are over 150 varieties of Finches? Each slightly different, maybe color difference or a larger beak or bigger wingspan. They came about by iterating on the Finches that came before.
In fact, that's how most advancements come about in nature, poetry, art, and yes, even technology. We take what came before an iterate on it.
I'm trying to think of a giant leap that came out of nowhere, but I can't.
Photos and videos are important to me. Really important. It's how I see my family 1000's of miles away or my daughter 5 miles away when I'm at work.
And just like in nature, either this iteration will thrive or die out eventually.
I like this analogy. Silicon valley generates random mutations of existing ideas, without thought or direction, and occasionally lands, by pure chance, on something slightly better, which survives at the expense of other inferior mutations.
I guess that maybe the developers working on "a new way to share photos and video" kid themselves that they're making something different; something that really is revolutionary. But no, what they're really doing is tweaking the shape of a beak thinking it'll make a better finch.
So I do kind of have to ask: is making random tweaks to the genome of the photo sharing application in the hope they'll be successful really the best use of the talents of all those developers?
> Silicon valley generates random mutations of existing ideas, without thought or direction, and occasionally lands, by pure chance, on something slightly better.
I would say that people do this. Silicon Valley does not do this "without thought or direction," but instead with great forethought and direction in the form of a "business plan."
The problem I see with this, is that this is not some earnest effort to improve photo sharing, but an obvious attempt to clone an existing and popular service with the hope of mining its popularity.
Truly the developers of this cannot think they created "a new way to share photos and video," unless they are ill. All they have done is applied a modest novelty to an existing concept. Not quite a "mutation" in the sense of a new species of Finch, but more in the vein of a parasite.
> So I do kind of have to ask: is making random tweaks to the genome of the photo sharing application in the hope they'll be successful really the best use of the talents of all those developers?
These developers CHOOSE to work at Facebook. If they don't feel as though re-inventing the slide show would be the best use of their time, there are thousands of companies which do cooler stuff that would GLADLY have them.
Maybe the people who work for Facebook aren't as smart as you think they are. Actually, what's far more likely is that MAYBE JUST MAYBE not every one of the tens of thousands of people working at Facebook is a genius...
> complaints over the app are a muted form of natural selection.
that's not true. we uninstall and don't use the app. Remember Facebook •Camera? That has exited the gene pool.
> Also, did ed209 honestly claim artists churn out iterations of what came before, just like facebook churning out cloneware?
Yes. Just search for art movements, whether from 14th century Renaissance to 1950's pop art. Tell me artists were not "influenced" by other art being produced at the time.
>that's not true. we uninstall and don't use the app. Remember Facebook •Camera? That has exited the gene pool.
We also voice our opinions publicly, and there's nothing wrong with that. Most app stores have a review section specifically for this purpose, but one shouldn't let that limit their forums for speech.
>Yes. Just search for art movements, whether from 14th century Renaissance to 1950's pop art. Tell me artists were not "influenced" by other art being produced at the time.
Even the great artists who steal all the best stuff end up creating something new and never seen before.
In 2011, 3,331 people were killed in crashes involving a distracted driver. 3,267 in 2010. [1]
When you say "This reduces distraction." you mean compared to holding the phone and doing those actions, right?
The way I would account for human behavior is to intelligently disable certain functionality as the car is moving. Compared to someone else's life, how important is that text message? Even dictating a text message takes some cognitive load.
Let's not mix the word "safer" and "distracted driving".
> "The way I would account for human behavior is to intelligently disable certain functionality as the car is moving. "
This is about the only way to enable intelligent control over device functionality. Absent this additional link, a modern cell phone can't tell a driver from an occupant.
With this, Apple and the car companies offer people a carrot so that they pair their device [1] and now they can limit the distractions: you can control the apps that are available on the car interface, you can pare down the notifications they're receiving (enable DND mode by default while driving), you can disable direct use of the paired device while the car is in motion, etc.
[1] The carrot being GPS and music-selection features already available on many modern car dashboards.
>The way I would account for human behavior is to intelligently disable certain functionality as the car is moving. Compared to someone else's life, how important is that text message?
Thereby ensuring a situation where the person takes their eyes off the road and looks at their seat for their phone, picks it up, and starts reading and replying to texts while barreling down the road in a high velocity chunk of steel.
That's what happens now. Apple's technology aims to prevent that.
>Even dictating a text message takes some cognitive load.
Yes it does. It also is much safer than doing it on your phone as people can and will continue to do, even in states where it is illegal. Apple isn't a legislature. They can't tackle unsafe driver behavior by crafting laws, but they can do so via software offerings.
If you intelligently disable in-car functionality (such as GPS when the car is moving), people will reach for another device to get that functionality. It's naive to think that constraints will automatically change users' desires.
Not true. Driving a car with bluetooth, I now see how wonderful and useful this feature is. I don't have to take my eyes off the road and I don't have to hold anything to my ear. Its very very seamless.
If you can't talk while you drive, then you shouldn't have passengers either.
Yes, but you're still distracted, and that's the problem.
The obvious difference between a phone call and a conversation had with someone in the car is that the person in the car is also placing their life at risk. Unlike the person who isn't there, they can (a) see and (b) intervene when you're starting to drive like an idiot.
It's not that a live conversation is any less distracting. It's just that it comes with a built in safety mechanism.
So essentially, phones should just turn themselves off when moving? I find it highly unlikely that such a law would get any traction (implementation seems rather difficult - by the time it's fully deployed, we'd have been better off putting efforts into self-driving cars). Companies have no chance of implementing this optionally: Why would I buy a car/phone I can't use as a passenger? Deaf passengers would be doubly upset, as the presumably-allowed voice-control features wouldn't be accessible to them.
As with anything it's about practice, negotiation is an art. For an unskilled negotiator the best thing to know is your BATNA.
A great rule of thumb is if people aren't saying no you didn't ask for enough.
The first time I negotiated I shot way over, apparently even the lawyer didn't make that much, my reply was that the lawyers work usually wasn't scalable across multiple clients and that any code I made was a capital good that could be resold again and again generating value in the company for years, then I pulled out a sales spreadsheet showing how the code I wrote for various product lines brought additional revenue to the company and then multiplied by the average length on the contract. (Make a really big number and ask for a small part of it).
Needless to say I was so successful in my negotiations that I was no longer allowed to have access to sales data.
The best part is once you negotiate a good salary you can use it in future negotiations as an indication of skill to get even better salaries. (eg. Does the competitor want to steal the $50K per year coder, or the $250K per year coder?)
For salary negotiation, I don't think knowing your BATNA is that helpful. Your BATNA is either accepting their initial offer or walking away.
I think your best course of action is to gather up salary data based on the job responsibilities of the job you're applying for. There are lots of online resources for researching salaries and you'll be able to grab data points like median, and quartiles. You can then massage that number up or down based on extra criteria like your unique skills, additional education, etc.
In any negotiation, finding objective criteria that you can show will always put you in a stronger position than creating semi-arbitrary bargaining positions.
The other best advice I could offer to would-be negotiators is to avoid setting any initial price until it's no longer reasonable to avoid it. If you have to name a price, name a price you're going to be very happy with.
My BATNA has rarely ever been accepting their offer, it's usually been already having an offer in hand, or having a bunch of interviews lined up in the coming days.
Objective criteria a horrible way to negotiate, look up the accounting term 'good will', you create 'good will' by not using objective criteria.
Name a price they will say no to, not one you're happy with, if they counter below your BATNA, tell them the mininum you'll accept is something above your BATNA, give them a timeframe to come correct, get up from the table and leave.
I could careless how badly the average, or 5th percentile employee is paid. If they want to retain me they'll a price better than my BATNA.
BATNA is best alternative to a negotiated agreement, meaning, it's what happens if you don't agree. So really, a BATNA in a salary negotiation for a new position is not taking the position. In an existing position where you're going for a raise, your BATNA is quitting.
BATNA isn't a bargaining position, it's your fallback option in case bargaining fails. I think you're talking more about your "bottom line", which is the lowest number you're willing to accept. A good negotiator goes in knowing his/her BATNA and bottom-line, but they're separate concepts.
I also completely disagree with you disregarding objective criteria. I used my recent purchase of a 2-year old vehicle as a way to gain some extra experience in negotiating and work on different approaches with two separate dealers. My initial approach with the dealer I ultimately bought from, was to derive my bottom-line number from objective criteria, but to show no strong evidence to how I got the numbers I was offering. I got nowhere with that approach. The sales manager didn't even come out to stop me from leaving when negotiations with the salesman got nowhere. We were only $1,000 from my bottom-line (which he didn't know) and about $1,800 away from our stated positions.
I came back a few days later with reasonable evidence based on market data of the particular model I was buying, as well as reasons why I'd go spend more money on another manufacturers' similar, but nicer model in the same class. They ended up coming down the full $1,800 after I was about to walk away again.
This works time and time again. Unless you're in a position where you completely don't care if you complete a purchase/sale/agreement, then holding onto unrealistic positions will never get you very far. My father-in-law likes to buy and sell stuff, but he pretty much only deals in unrealistic offers, and he rarely ends up buying or selling anything, even though he spends a decent amount of time looking.
If they are a strong no, try and trade off that $15k for increased benefits in some way
If they are a weak no, lower your ask.
They will almost certainly give you $5k above what they quote, maybe $10k
And keep in mind: if you're a typical software engineer going through a typical full-day on-site software engineering interview, they've dumped the better part of $1000 worth of dev-hours just to interview you (double that if they flew you out!) so seriously, asking for an extra $5k is no skin off their back. Just do it.
Read 'Getting to Yes' and 'Bargaining to Advantage' for more specifics about this discussion. I think everyone should read them. It doesn't hurt to include 'Influence.'
I think there is also an interesting embarassment factor - I felt that people did not like to be seen needing help on Jig. People that asked for help did get lots of it.
I also think the notification framework (posting to facebook would just get comments there, not on Jig; emailing people is annoying) is different for mobile rather than desktop use as well.
I still like the idea a lot so I hope Jelly unlocks the idea.
Yes. The "total pool of bitcoins" is actually less than 21m, considering the lost ones. Does it matter, though? Whether the max is 21m or 20.1321029 ...
Potentially. There's a chance that someone could recreate the same keys for the lost wallets, but the odds are not in their favor (gross understatement). If this happened they'd be able to create transactions moving the bitcoins in the formerly lost wallets to their own wallet(s). However, until someone gets so lucky these bitcoins are locked out of the economy.
No. They are still there, accounted to that address in the blockchain. In the rare event that someone discovers the private key used to derive that address: happy days. In the near term, practically speaking, you can negate them from circulation. It's a very low probability that it'll be spent.
Break wallets encrypted with a passphrase, or crack private keys? The former is possible for weak passphrases, but if the latter is ever possible that's a Very Bad Thing for Bitcoin.
It may happen eventually, but hopefully we will have migrated to stronger crypto by then. I do wonder what will happen to abandoned coins at that point. Will they become invalid after a migration period, or will they be up for grabs to the fastest cracker?
I meant to crack private keys, it will eventually become viable to spend resources researching/developing an attack vector to break those abandoned wallets. Migration to better cryptos will certainly happen, but remember that the lost wallets won't be upgraded, because they're, well, lost.
Making them invalid would be self-defeating to bitcoin, but it's not bitcoin's fault that some day abandoned wallets will become breakable, there will never be an everlasting bullet-proof encryption, and my point is: It won't happen tomorrow, it may take tens or hundreds of years, but it will certainly happen.
Agreed, though I'm not sure Bitcoin's users/miners wouldn't "vote" to eventually invalidate unmigrated wallets. There's a tradeoff between accidentally destroying someone's legitimate wealth (e.x. a nLockTime'd transaction left as an inheritance) vs allowing crackers to eventually claim potentially enormous abandoned wallets (worth billions, if not trillions of dollars in the future). But remember those unmigrated wallets would also be equally vulnerable to cracking as abandoned wallets.
Perhaps there could be a solution whereby a nLockTime'd transactions could be presented during the migration period. I haven't thought through the details.
Either way, treasure hunting in the future will almost certainly be of the digital variety.
