No offense, but it seems to me that researching and subsequently ripping off 20 year-old games is somewhat different than ripping off days-old games already designed for the same interface.
I'm not really sure what your question here is; did you mean to ask dmix instead? In case it was directed at me, I'll try to sketch a response.
Generally, I think that Lessig's work in this area is laudable but misguided: that is, that the influence of money is a symptom and not the root cause he claims it to be. I really hope that he creates positive change as a result of this, but I don't have high expectations.
My belief of what the root cause is is that the citizenry is too used to keeping their heads down and don't have the mental framework to accept the offering of power that democracy is supposed to be. So, in a sense, you can limit the influence of money by decentralizing power to the extent that it is properly a democracy. I would loosely define a democracy, in this context, to be a society in which over 70% of the citizens are active participants in governance.
(That last paragraph was mostly a matter of preemptively responding to "you can't just leave us hanging" charges rather than a proper manifesto.)
Shared focus, accountability, and retrospect. Also, a potential group of friends who won't judge you for doing nothing but sitting on a pillow for a half an hour (or more) every day.
I've been part of a few meditation groups. You really have to find the right mix or it doesn't work well.
I personally prefer alone-time meditation to introspect and sift through my inner concerns and arrange my emotional situation.
However you choose to do it, meditation is a wonderful way to unwind and an app with nice calming music and imagery is one way to disconnect from the bedlam.
(said while typing on hacker news with the calm site on the other screen)
Another perspective - what if they just followed cars leaving those bars and clubs for 1 mi., then returning and starting over after observing the driver's behavior?
I'm actually not opposed to breathalyzers inside of the car - it seems far less invasive than cops doing it for you, with the authority to ruin your life. If the car won't let you drive, call a friend or a taxi.
In any event, I'd prefer to avoid the hassle and feeling of being a suspected criminal that accompanies being stopped on the way home at a checkpoint. Papers please? (jk...?)
>Another perspective - what if they just followed cars leaving those bars and clubs for 1 mi., then returning and starting over after observing the driver's behavior?
You might notice someone being completely drunk that way, but not someone who's just moderately drunk reacting 10 times slower; unless something happens, of course, but you don't want that either.
If I max out the monthly rewards on one card, I can start building the rewards on the next.
Some people can't manage their spending with a credit card, some people can't believe that these companies are giving away all that free shit (even money in return) just by not paying cash. Depends on how they manage their finances.
Rewards are transparent. Spend some money and before you know it, you get a $100 check or gas cards or amazon credit etc. What a headache!!! I hate it when people give me money for free!
For free? Really? No, people give you money, as they are building a great big database of your consuming-behavior. Not only what you buy, but when, where, in which quantities, what goes together with what, and so on.
That is the currency, that you do pay for these "perks".
If the author's point was in fact that "even a YC startup is in fact, just another startup," then he shouldn't have mentioned YC because in the context of the now-deleted blog post it can only serve to narrow down the candidate list of companies that the post was in reference to. That is somewhat malicious, given the sentiments expressed.
If that wasn't "overwhelmingly" the point he was trying to make, and he was in fact trying to imply that YC startups have an inherently better chance of success than "just another startup," then your comment is moot.
Malicious or not, telling the world over the Internet about bad experiences you had with co-workers probably isn't a great idea in the long run. Hash it out with them directly, or learn a personal lesson and move on.
> it can only serve to narrow down the candidate list of companies that the post was in reference to. That is somewhat malicious, given the sentiments expressed.
This seems like an awfully cynical view to take. YC has accepted quite a few startups in its lifetime (564 to be exact [1]), and he mentioned no other specificities aside from that. He could have titled it "My experience at an incubated/accelerated startup", but then there wouldn't be much of an anchor back to reality to drive it into people's heads that: 'hey, this does happen, and it could happen to you'. Not to mention that any of the other 'large' accelerators probably still pale in comparison to YC's startup numbers. Either way, trying to anchor a helpful point into reality does not seem like good evidence for maliciousness. Trying to frame another person's legitimate attempt at helping others as malicious feels more malicious.
>If that wasn't "overwhelmingly" the point he was trying to make, and he was in fact trying to imply that YC startups have an inherently better chance of success than "just another startup," then your comment is moot.
No, because that's a given. The post was talking about cultural aspects, and I in-turn was talking about cultural aspects. And thus here you are (either intentionally, or unintentionally) arguing that there is some deep correlation between a company's specific set of cultural decisions and a company's success. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that's the case.
> Malicious or not, telling the world over the Internet about bad experiences you had with co-workers probably isn't a great idea in the long run. Hash it out with them directly, or learn a personal lesson and move on.
I agree that being a bad sport and gossiping over the internet is in poor taste, but telling someone to bottle up their insights when it seems like they're trying to help other people avoid the same mistakes is just counterproductive. We live in a society and we should help eachother out. Depriving the community of potentially useful insights out of fear that you'll run into the ~0.1% (1/564 * 100) chance of accidentally gossiping about somebody is just not productive for anybody.
That's the first link I found referencing the fact that June is LGBTQ Pride month but if you look back over time Google has been doing this for years. This year it just happens to coincide with trending search terms due to the SCOTUS ruling. I can't believe I'm the first person to post this.
It's easy to knock Mr. Kurzweil, given his supranormal convictions about the relatively near-term future of our society. However, check out some of the names on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Murray_Hopper_Award
...it looks more like he is invited
to play the clown and amuse the assistance,
[rather] than to lead [to] anything concrete.
It may be a bit preemptive to discount him so readily.
Some great scientists, some ho-hum and some that are there mostly for political or other reasons. I mean Wozniak in 1979? What had he done at that point to be in the same list with Knuth or even Bill Joy?
Since you invoke the list, are we to expect the same great stuff from Kurzweil in Google, as we got from Wozniak post 1979, Richard Stallman past 1990 and Stroustrup past 1993?
> I mean Wozniak in 1979? What had he done at that point to be in the same list with Knuth or even Bill Joy?
Woz was largely responsible for designing the Apple I & Apple II, both of which played a pretty significant part in starting the entire PC industry. Seems like a pretty spectacular achievement to me.
