The number of people using messaging apps (not sms) daily has skyrocketed in the last couple years, has it not? The shift is probably less recognizable because it's not a shift to messaging in general (text messaging represented that shift years ago), but a shift in platform from sms to messaging applications that innovators actually have some control over. Personally, i think it's a combination of that and the machine learning thing you mention. I'd wager that the amount of time the average person spends looking at/using a messaging app every day is very significant. Especially for something that has yet to be integrated very well or monetized.
Sad that the user is being lost in these discussions. I get that people are worried about a slippery slope and boundaries, but this is clearly a better user experience for someone who searched for Southwest Airlines. Put yourself in the position of a human being who just performed a search for Southwest Airlines, would you honestly be angry with that result? No, of course not.
It's ironic that every time one of these "omg, google is pushing organic search results off the page" posts comes up, it's the general public who's obsessed with dollars, whereas Google seems to be concerned for the user. Google makes a ton of money off of advertising because they know how to provide useful user experience. Which isn't surprising really, they have a lot more vested interest in making sure they provide such an experience than arstechnica do.
Sure they want to find ways to align their incentives with the user's incentives, but come on people: think of the people they saved clicking through to www.cheapair.com and www.insanelycheapflights.com
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you left out the step where a judge reviews the request to make sure it's not overly broad or based on flimsy reasoning.
Aside from that I'd say it's a very clear, and it's sad that there seems to be a pervasive inference that these companies are something something beyond what our elected law makers have forced them to do. Why isn't more angst directed at the politicians responsible for this?
I think it's also worth noting that the intended audience of these slides wasn't the general public/press. It's possible the purpose of using wording like "directly from the servers" was simply to delineate the origin of the data from the data pulled off the wire, not the mechanism of retrieval (e.g. some backdoor outside of the existing legal procedure for acquiring such data). I just picture the person who wrote these slides and chose those words either laughing their ass off, or face-palming right now. The companies involved have been pretty explicit (at great risk I might add by putting their founders' names on the denials) that there isn't "direct access" or anything like it.
The real story here is the "Upstream" collection. Just horribly irresponsible behavior for a steward of much of the Internet's infrastructure. Shameful.
I don't think modifying already self-replicating seeds should give you a right to dictate what happens with subsequent generations of those seeds. Any such agreements should be rendered invalid (like non-compete agreements in California).
I realize this is an issue with the laws themselves and probably not within the purview of the Supreme Court, but I was kind of hoping they'd step in and end the madness.
How did this status quo come about to begin with? Was it through gender discriminatory practices? Is it possible (I'm just asking here) that the gender "imbalance" is the equilibrium?
Meh. I'm sure when this is all over, AirBnb will have put some measures in place to add additional security (from a pr perspective at least). Really, nothing short of legitimate insurance is going to make using a service like this "safe" (id's are easy enough to steal/fake) and I'm sure that the people likely to use something like this (who were already ignoring the common sense dangers involved) are not going to be deterred by ej's story (she claims on her blog to have been the type of person to leap first and wait for a net to appear).
In the end, many people who were never going to use AirBnB to begin with will feel more certain in their (probably wise) decision, and many new people who will be open to the idea will now have heard of it for the first time.
I had a similar reaction to this post. Surprised that she depicted the issue being escalated all the way up to the cofounder as somehow a reduction in customer service. Not that they've seemed to have handled this well by any stretch, but they certainly seem to be taking this seriously.
Is it me, or does it take a significant amount of melodrama to negatively construe being asked to grab coffee with the cofounder of the company with whom you have some dispute as bad customer service (he didn't ask if she was alright? really?).
What happened to her sucks, and AirBnB certainly doesn't sound like a service i would use personally, but to be honest, I wasn't shocked to hear people calling into question whether or not this was a real person. She seems to be going out of her way to characterize events (as the parent mentions) in as negative a light as possible.
Find a project you're actually interested in (not just interested in the notoriety of being a part of). The ide/environment kind of depends on the project and the language/assets that you'll be working with specifically.
Once you find a project you're interested in, find them on irc. Don't be too pushy, hang out and try to pick up on the dynamic. That doesn't mean you should be silent, just don't be annoying.
A great way to catch up on an existing project (the earlier you get on board btw, the easier it will be to start) is to start helping out with testing. A lot of programmers don't enjoy writing automated tests (which they should be writing first anyways), so that stuff usually gets left to someone to clean up. An ancillary benefit of which is that you can learn a ton about a project by adding tests.
The only other thing you'll probably need some experience with kind of across the board is version control. Experiment a little with git/svn so that you aren't intimidated by submitting patches (version control can seem intimidating before you've worked with it, but most of the time it's pretty basic).
This is actually a faith claim In and of itself. Your basically saying you don't believe there is a God who desires (or worse, requires) anything from you. Otherwise it would be in your best interest to care. You're completely entitled to your own beliefs, but passing it off as a position of "non-belief" is illogical. It's the same paradox as "there is no truth" being a truth claim. You sound like a person of great dedication to your belief, despite (and actually because of) your statements to the contrary.