> He's not adding anything interesting to the photos.
I like this about it. He adds a banal, trivial, perhaps non-sensical comment that satirizes the emptiness and one-sidedness of communication on today's most popular social platform. And the timing was perfect.
I began working at Nokia after they sold the phone business. It's not a place where people were just clocking in and out; there ws a strong effort and opportunity (born of necessity) to innovate. It was exciting.
I suppose there are a limited number of examples of big companies with declining market share that successfully turn the ship around, but a few notable examples come to mind. Shareholders can always sell if they don't want to go along for the ride.
I stayed in a house in nice residential neighborhood in Berkeley recently. It had four bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a kitchen, and it was clear the owner didn't live there. In fact, I never saw the owner or spoke with him at all. We were instructed to not speak to the neighbors, and not answer any questions about the owner's Airbnb business. Clearly, the neighbors weren't pleased that an unregulated hotel had sprung up in the middle of their neighborhood.
On the other hand, it cost me $60/night versus the $250+/night charged by local 3-star hotels.
"Women compete, compare, undermine and undercut one another — at least that is the prevailing notion of how we interact."
This is written as if men don't do exactly the same thing --and in my experience they do. Even among my close group of friends, the competition and "playful" undermining is non-stop and often exhausting.
"[Women] express indirect aggression toward other women, and that aggression is a combination of “self-promotion,” making themselves look more attractive, and “derogation of rivals,” being catty about other women."
So for the exact same reasons as men, though men wouldn't normally be described as "catty." Catty means being subtly or indirectly cruel, and though men will act this way, it seems infrequent, perhaps they are more directly combative, or they do it in a more joking way. In any case, it seems that men are equally competitive, for largely the same reasons, though they may express themselves slightly differently.
It's an outrage. I recently submitted an incoherent, hate-filled diatribe to the New York Times, and they refused to publish it on the front page! Where is my freedom of speech? I recently submitted a video of my parrot to NBC, and they refused to play it on the nightly news! Where does the censorship end? We're clearly witnessing the erosion of our constitutional rights.
Your comparison is so far off anything, that I have a hard time answering.
Nobody asked Apple to publish the videos on their front page. There is an app that let's people access CCC content in a more friendly/more easy way then say Safari or YouTube.
Apple blocks said app, but does not do so for all the other apps that can show this content. And the reason they give is, that this app shows content, that does show how "secure" some Apple products are. Content mostly from renown security hackers?
So why is CCC-TV banned, but not Safari? Not any other browser? Not YouTube?
Why does Apple get to selectively punish smaller organisations and all the fanboys run to their defences?
btw.: Written on a Macbook Pro, but not from an iOS user.
The point of the comparison is not about placement on a front page (I could complain the NYTimes won't publish my article anywhere on their server), but rather that Apple created and operates a private distribution channel, and it has a right to exercise editorial judgement over that channel.
I don't necessarily agree with their decision to omit CCC-TV, and I think it's a bit silly that they did so. But it doesn't matter: it's their right to do so, and I don't get to force my will on them just because I disagree or think they're being irrational.
I'm glad people are critical of Apple's decision, but not when they claim it's a violation of freedom of speech, or when they falsely equate it to government censorship. I can't support a gross misunderstanding of law, government, or the Constitution that's being invoked, even if we want the same end result.
I know you are writing this tongue-in-cheek, but imagine if the US postal service made it a felony to send a letter to anyone that had "hate speech" (by their definition) in it. Or that you had to be verified and "white-listed" (via SS #, or facebook) to even post your parrot link before it could be rightly rejected.
The reason people get up in arms about these sorts of things isn't that companies should do what they want regardless profit or existing business strategy, it is that once you successfully take a decisive action on something that most people don't care about, it makes it that much easier to do it with something that is important in the future when it is difficult for people to choose another option or vote with their wallets.
> You may say whatever you like, provided no one is there to hear it.
Freedom of speech does not mean you are granted unmitigated control over the content a private medium, channel, or platform. For example, it doesn't imply that I can force the New York Times to publish this comment in their newspaper, nor can I force NBC to read this comment aloud on the nightly news. Similarly, I cannot force Apple to publish my content on their platform. In no way does this violate of my freedom of speech.
>Similarly, I cannot force Apple to publish my content on their platform. In no way does this violate of my freedom of speech.
Only in the sense that this "freedom of speech" is codified in current law -- and that's specific to the US even, elsewhere can differ.
Other countries for examples don't allow a shop owner discriminate as to who he choses to do business with (e.g. like that Colorado bakery that refused to sell to gay couples).
I'd say it would be good for society if companies having mass business platforms were forced by law to not be allowed to censor anything not already censorable by law already (e.g. child pornography, libel etc).
I predicted Twitter would be the next unicorn to cut staff and offices ten days ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10300002). To be honest, I didn't think it would happen quite this fast.
But 4K employees, 2K engineers to support Twitter? If they were still in a rapid growth/innovation phase, perhaps they could get away with this. But rapid growth is over.
> they need to figure out how to fundamentally improve the ease of use of the whole thing
I've frequently heard this theory, that Twitter's problem is that it's too complicated. I don't buy it. It has a simpler UI than Facebook or Snapchat, and it's not significantly more complicated than Instagram or Vine or Periscope or any other media sharing platform.
If you personally enjoy Twitter and derive value from it, it's easy to believe that people who don't get into Twitter just don't understand it it. My experience is that many people sign up, send their first tweet, and then say, "OK, I get it, and I have no use for this." I've helped my friends follow news sources and celebrities they like, but then they look at the wall of Tweets and say, "OK, I get it, but I don't want to read things in this format." It's not about ease-of-use for them, it's about the basic value proposition of tweeting and the Twitter feed.
I feel like it took me a few years to get my "Following" list to where I really liked my stream. Took a lot of patience of adding people every week for what seemed like forever.
when people say "ease of use" that's what i think about
Reddit has a list of default subs to get people started. A lot just keep the main list, but some continue to add and subtract as their tastes change. Is that what you are proposing?
Here's the problem. Twitter has to decide whether it is A) algorithmic (facebook style, they show you content they think you'll like an optimize it by the time you are engaged with it), B) curated - someone else decides what you may like and it is suggested C) you organize it yourself.
Lots of people at Twitter are all about (C), and have ideas how to improve it. However, management has never really been hot on it, and prefers (A) because it is easier to "measure" and optimize for. If (C) was done well, and allowed users a good way to find content they though was interesting, it would be super helpful.
Another problem is that Twitter still sucks for media. Michael Sippey, then head of product, was against anything but text. He was out within a year. Text is hard to create (well), but photos are very easy- snap, apply a filter and bam, billions of food photos on Instagram. One of the appeals of Snapchat and Instagram are that they allow you to broadcast photos/video very easily. In essence, they are a better Twitter for 99% of the population.
As a non-twitter-using software engineer, when I land on a twitter page, I still find it fairly intimidating and requiring special knowledge. For example, why is there a dot before the @ in your example? (I actually know the answer to that because I looked it up once, but it's totally not obvious.) What's with all the slashes in numbered lists?
Because of the character limit, people use a lot of abbreviations and shorthand that I can usually figure out with some puzzling, but I shouldn't have to do that.
I still see url-shortener urls all over on twitter, when I should just see regular urls.
These may be minor points, but it adds up to giving off the feeling that there's an in-crowd and I'm not invited. It is much better than it was a few years ago, though, so maybe it'll get there.
(I'm not even getting into the difficulty of actually following a conversation on twitter! Reverse-chronological order plus the lack of linking replies to their parent messages make it nearly impossible, but that's a well-known issue.)
I agree that the @ at the beginning or the @ in the middle is a problem.
here is my opinion Jack if you are reading.
Every tweet needs some extra field when you are creating them.
* to: field like email. A list of people or "everybody"
* body: 140 characters.
* tags: relevant tags so that your tween can be found by non followers interested in a specific topic.
* url: seperate url so as not to use up your 140 chars. Nobody wants to use a link shortener.
If you're an active twitter user, you likely know how it works. But otherwise, the @ mentions etc. are not very simple w/o somebody teaching you. And even after that, it can seem difficult.
> "The average salary ... being $125,667 in Arizona."
This immediately struck me as preposterous, as I'm familiar with the local Arizona economy.
Then I saw that number is based on a sample size of 3 survey respondents. When your sample size is so small that the results are statistically meaningless, why even bother making such a claim?
I like this about it. He adds a banal, trivial, perhaps non-sensical comment that satirizes the emptiness and one-sidedness of communication on today's most popular social platform. And the timing was perfect.