All Chinese companies are subsidiaries of Chinese communists party. There is no single exception. TikTok and Huawei have been exploiting all of its information and power to influence in the favor of China Communist Party and it's against not just us, but all the free states and people in proper nations.
The significance between top-down vs. bottom-up has been compiled and showcased by Matt Ridley, in his book, "The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge." It says most of human beings are incapable of comprehending evolutionary design like free market. It's true. OP labeled markets as an example of top-down phenomenon.
Absolutely true. I started migrating to Linux when I had to bring an external keyboard all the time. The keyboard sucks, extremely. I loved reading on iBooks, but I even coded its alternative with the identical theme in Emacs. I hate "that" keyboard so much. It's extremely embarrassing.
Whenever I face the arguments of determinism vs. indeterminism, I wonder how indeterminism would be defined in a purely indeterministic world. I don't know. But in this seemingly deterministic universe, we define indeterminism as a negative sense to the deterministic dynamics we observe, but we can't do it in a positive sense. All of our conceptions of "indeterminism" and random/chaos like concepts is all "determinism-biased" in that sense. Maybe, determinism might be a tiny, tiny small subset of a huge set of indeterminism, as if integers are a tiny subset of all real numbers. There's no such a thing as integers vs. real numbers. Integers are also just real numbers. In that sense, determinism might be a small part of indeterminism.
I love Haskell and OCaml, and other functional languages. However, no matter how intelligent and higher-level functional language becomes, I don't think they can replace procedural language, especially for time-based programmings, such as user interface effects, animations, or network-dependent operations. Some features are inherently procedural by their nature, and functional language are not functional for describing them.
Class hierarchies are just mental tools, not how machines/programs/automatas actually work. If the mental tools implode due to exceptions and complexities, that's the problem of their uses, not tools by themselves. Before blaming hierarchies, you should blame yourself for using tools in wrong ways.
The little tiny games topping the free chart may not earn as much as they seem, unless they are played again and again for a long time. They should depend on clicks of mobile ads and mobile games have poor CPI ratios. Yeah. Flappy Bird has been downloaded more than a few million times and is known to garner $50,000 a day. Nice. But that would be a grand outlier and I don't think the game sustains that amount of revenue now.
If it had no business model and no revenues at all, I would assume that the valuation might be higher, since it's far easier to sell on expectations, rather than real cashflow, which would somehow limit the speculator's unbound speculations.
What is causation exactly? There's no way to prove any instance of causations at all, if we delve deep into the problem of causation. Even though all data, or correlations, support F=ma, a single exceptional case can disapprove the "correlation," therefore we cannot assert force causes accelerations, and so on, since no amount of correlations is ever enough to prove causation.
This is one of the most horrendous brandings I've ever seen. Maybe, the horrible branding is intentional, but it's damn too creepy for sane users who dare using their product.
Computer science == models of computing. One of those models is language. We can run machines without codes, but with feelings and images. We, human beings, are just complex finite automata with very complex states and meta-states.
I'm so tired of seeing motivation hacks, or similar stuff. If something supposed to motivate you doesn't motivate you enough, that supposition is just plain weak and has no deeper place within you. That's it. Be yourself. That's the ultimate motivation. Nothing else can be motivating you more than that, and shouldn't be, unless you want to be someone else, or as hollow as possible.
What an innovative company that wraps up a questionable practice into an yet another good looking shop with "amazing growth." The VCs might have taken that as an innovation.
If it would ever make any sense, multiple electrons should weigh no more than one single electron. But that would be obviously false under Standard Model, to treat something singular to be that apparently multiple. Or, our present physics needs to totally reconstructed to incorporate that, by building everything again from defining the "tremendous knot" and the implications from its hypothetical world lines. Instead, what if, everything from electrons, protons, even strings, is sort of that "knot?" That would make more sense, in terms of coherence.