> 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.
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 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.
> 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.
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.
> "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 don't expect it to disappear (not completely, not over night).
But they're burning through $130M+ a quarter and growth is stalling. They don't seem to have leadership with a vision of where to take the company from here.
Twitter still enjoys some cache with celebrities, but how much longer will that hold true?
So how will they stop bleeding? Maybe they'll transform Twitter into something profitable, or maybe they'll look to the 2,000+ engineers, and ask why they need so many.
You're underestimating the awesomeness of the human brain to tackle big problems. I want to be drunk, watching movies, pleasuring myself in the backseat of an autonomous Uber during my two-hour commute in and out of the city. Open your mind.
> WhatsApps product is much, much simpler than twitters products.
Can you enumerate Twitter's products?
Perhaps Instagram is a closer comparison -- broadcast photos instead of broadcast 140 characters. And you have a much smaller engineering team, much faster growth, twice as many active users, and far fewer fail whales.
Regardless of the comparisons, 2,000 engineers seems excessive in proportion to Twitter's product, which suggests engineering inefficiency.
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.