Looks like about 20% of comp sci grads in the US are women. Seems like the very simple "why". As for that why... idk probably need to change how kids grow up en-masse. My guess, which probably isn't worth much, is it'll happen slowly, but will probably take a generation or two.
There's probably also some genetically encoded differences on risk-averseness (another guess). FAANG is a great gig and is much more predictable and stable.
Consistently is a big word without any proof. After all scientists have found many of gender norm in nearest animals and completely isolated human tribes.
I'm not talking about the "trusted by" section, but now that I'm visiting your site again, I see you've added that. When i looked a year back you only had the second section. "The power of open source" which then shows a ton of logos, including:
affirm, box, axon, youtube, github, square, shopify, new relic, yelp, weave... If these are all your customers, that really wasn't clear to me! And that's awesome! You should be more explicit that they're all your customers.
I thought it was just saying, "hey, all these folks are using this open source thing that we're also using/selling".
Endgame is decentralizing the internet and perhaps non-internet protocols. Even if the probability of a decentralized social network working is small, the upside in the case it does work is so large that it's worth the bet
ie: 100% downside vs 10,000%+ upside. If only 1 out of 100 such bets works out they break even. If 2 they have a profitable fund, 3+ they have knocked it out of the park.
I don't believe the VCs have such lofty or noble goals as decentralising the internet. If it were possible I believe they'd want to corner the emerging market as it grows.
But I think you're right that the upside is so attractive given how little they need to invest to realise significant gains.
>Endgame is decentralizing the internet and perhaps non-internet protocols.
The internet was always decentralized. That's literally the entire point of TCP/IP. The web, however, is indeed being centralized; and crypto is at the forefront of that. For all the talk of "democratizing finance", the reality is that all of these web3 proponents have no interest in anything beyond enriching themselves by reinventing the existing centralized banking system minus all that pesky regulation.
Internet protocols are all decentralized. We tried, users do not want to be an agent in a distributed system. They want to watch TikTok on their phone, not setup a home server or a wallet for decentralized finance ideas. Coinbase and similar firms success is proof that people do not want decentralized anything.
Google is kind of like "email verification" brought forward since they own 65% of the email market and even more of the browser market.
We also "verify" and authenticate, but that is where we diverge. We also help websites manage "profiles" and "accounts" and that data can be made available for customization and personalization. From what a user sees to how they interact with a site or app.
Finally, we give the user the ability to retroactively "revoke consent" to their data. When they turn it off, the site and app no longer have access to it.
If that's an issue for you (like it was for me), get one of the Macbook Air models released this year. No touchbar, has a great keyboard, and pro enough for most uses.
It gives an opportunity for newer, simpler and faster actors to come and replace the incumbents. Complex systems are hard to maintain. Nature spent billions of years perfecting the process, we can't be expected to learn it in couple of decades.
This is a tough one. In Seattle police are directed to not use their body cams unless they are doing crime investigation stuff. The policy is designed to protect the privacy of people not under investigation or otherwise not involved in crime.
In pre-body cam days Seattle PD got caught video taping protests or demonstrations. The current policy prevents that.
Thus, Seattle cops generally have their cams turned off while dealing with demonstrations or protests.
The policy is designed to protect the privacy of people not under investigation or otherwise not involved in crime.
And conveniently, you don't know if you'll be under investigation or accused of a crime until it's too late to turn the camera on.
Sorry, that excuse doesn't fly. This concern should be addressed by controlling the custody of the footage, not by preventing it from being captured in the first place. In reality, body cameras protect good cops.
Policies like this have been adopted with support from the ACLU. Your flippantly dismissive attitude towards this view makes me think you aren't all that aware of why cities might have this policy:
(Shrug) When weighing theoretical abstract harms against everyday atrocities, I find it fairly straightforward to pick a side.
The ACLU says, "There is a long history of law enforcement compiling dossiers on peaceful activists exercising their First Amendment rights in public marches and protests, and using cameras to send an intimidating message to such protesters: “we are WATCHING YOU and will REMEMBER your presence at this event.”"
I don't remember anything like that happening, at least not recently. Do you? The FBI behaved that way towards MLK, certainly, but it didn't have anything to do with body cameras.
In any case, I haven't argued, and won't argue, that police officers, or even the department itself, should have access to the footage except when necessary to defend themselves. Ideally it would be encrypted with a key held by an oversight board with substantial civilian representation.
You could use a device with a four-hour rotating buffer of video, that burns a physical fuse when you keep a record. Failure to press the button within two hours of a serious incident could be grounds for dismissal of the supervising officer.
Very good point. I’m sure some hardware that uploads encrypted footage that’s only accessible with a warrant is technically possible - which would alleviate this concern. But that’s in a perfect world.
Lol, as if there are no public cameras, cars don't have dash cams, ATMs and stores don't have cameras, or that citizens have no expectation of privacy from one another
While I understand the sentiment, my understanding was that there is no evidence that body and actually improve outcomes even when they are actually used.
Unlike restaurant delivery, grocery delivery services are right now operating mostly on non-exclusive contracts with the upstream chains (because the chains are big and have a lot of negotiating power; and because the chains have a real need to partner with different delivery services in different markets, because no delivery service exists everywhere the chains are yet.) There's no real market for delivery from mom-n-pop produce markets, and so there's nobody for grocery delivery services to bully into accepting an exclusive contract with them.
If you can get the same groceries from the same store no matter which portal you order through, then the portal itself is a commodity.
On the Postmates App, yes, you definitely care about where you're getting your food. The marketplace here is between eater (buyer) and restaurant (supplier).
However, if you are a business that wants to offer delivery directly and don't want to create your own delivery network, you would use Postmates API. In this case, the business (buyer) doesn't care about each individual supplier (i.e. the fleet is a commodity).
Our first version (which failed miserably) was a prediction-only product with no workflow and a minimal interface. Here's what happened:
- Initially our hypothesis was we could build data models that automatically suggested a specification or tasks based on certain criteria the user identified (for e.g. iOS app for video based calling).
- The system would suggest programming languages, frameworks and a set of tasks based on the criteria
- User would immediately reject the suggestions/predictions outright (even if they were based collectively on data from stack overflow and other platforms). This would be due to a number of reasons: 1) Didn't trust the ML models to make the right predictions 2) The predictions were their first interaction with the platform.
As a result- we went back to the drawing board- and realized that to build a true "smart" project management system, we would need to start with intuitive workflows, and pepper in predictions over time based on usage and a team's actual stats. The AI tld stuck, plus we're planning on bringing the ML models to our public version soon. TBD.
We also plan on using NLP for automatic task connect to Git repos/PRs/commits and ML for predictions around effort estimates. But - we're still some time away from the open beta on making that a reality.
P.S. We recently acquired the tara.com domain which took 2 years of negotiations. A story for another time.
eh, I understand the sentiment - but it's a little overkill. Junior programmers can be code reviewed and taught these things over time, and also be wildly productive in a production setting.
Sure you can teach junior programmers all kinds of stuff that they should have already learned or should know how to learn, I do it all the time. I'm arguing that this is crucial information that even entry-level engineers should know. If they don't, then I give them a link to the relevant documentation and politely ask them to read it. It's a prerequisite.
There's probably also some genetically encoded differences on risk-averseness (another guess). FAANG is a great gig and is much more predictable and stable.