Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | ncallaway's comments login

It's almost like he did very well at another company prior to joining Amazon.

-----


He helped create XML:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Bray

-----


How do you handle a situation where you estimate a given price and don't have any developers willing to complete that project at the given price?

-----


It was not made public why Victoria was fired. Neither of the parties are talking about it, so generally it's unknown.

The /r/iama mods were not upset that she was fired. They were upset that there was no transition plan in place.

> it seems like there was a lot of finger pointing before anyone knew what was actually happening

There was finger pointing because nobody knew what was happening. Functions that Victoria was performing fell through and — according to the /r/iama mods — jeopardized the functioning of the AMAs that week.

-----


This is what many/most have overlooked. Victoria was the straw that broke the camel's back. Her firing was indicative of the lack of appreciation / recognition given to the moderator's, and was just another example of the disconnect and (perceived) exploitation of moderator time/effort without the proper support and tools.

-----


> Her firing was indicative of the lack of appreciation / recognition given to the moderator's, and was just another example of the disconnect and (perceived) exploitation of moderator time/effort without the proper support and tools

Which long predated Pao at reddit. But even giving her the responsibility for this, nowhere is the apparent gross incompetence apparently seen by those calling so vociferously for Pao to be fired.

-----


> The /r/iama mods were not upset that she was fired. They were upset that there was no transition plan in place.

From what I saw it was both. They shut down over the latter because it left them unable to manage things to their satisfaction, but they seemed to genuinely like her and wanted her to keep her position.

-----


I'm not sure how that squares with: "We mods truly feel that she is irreplaceable" or the many other similar statements from the mods.

-----


It might be more that trust is broken and she can't be replaced now.

-----


Yeah, no question there. Things would have gone a lot smoother, explanation or no, if they'd had a plan to carry on without her.

-----


OnLive and Gaikai were the big two that I remember. Gaikai was acquired by Sony, and OnLive failed and parts of it were also sold off to Sony.

-----


I wonder how much of this post is covered by patents now owned by Sony.

-----


You're basically combining three parts, Steam Streaming, nVidia's hardware stuff, and OpenVPN. OpenVPN and all the high-level ideas it embodies definitely predates Gankai or anything like that. Steam Streaming and nVidia's stuff are certainly going to be covered by their own patents. In theory the combination could be patented but I'd argue for "a network stream can be run over a VPN" is firmly "obvious to those skilled in the art"... network streams are network streams are network streams.

Sony et al probably have more specific patents for their own setups, but to the extent they cover this setup they'd either be obvious, or they'd be trying to sue you for doing stuff covered under nVidia or Valve's patents. This, alas, doesn't necessarily protect you, but would certainly raise some PR issues. Plus Amazon might have some questions as well, since they don't want people getting hit for using cloud services to do things; anything that smells like special cloud licensing just because you're doing X "but in the cloud!" is going to hurt their business model.

I can't guarantee they have nothing to sue over, but the costs/benefits would not seem to argue in favor of Sony suing.

-----


The entire point of being a VC is that the Expected Value should be greater than the investment.

If a VC generates the same return as investments in the lottery, that VC would quickly cease operations.

-----


Yes, but every VC knows that it's still a gamble that may not, and probably won't pay off. They spread their risk across many startups in order to minimize losses that are covered by huge windfalls the come from the big winners. At the end of the day though, it's still a gamble. They could end up losing it all.

-----


Yes, but their investment still has a positive ROI (if they do their homework and the economy doesn't collapse, that is). The ROI on a lottery ticket is negative (unless you're at MIT and figure out a loophole like this).

-----


The fact you needed to include a proviso proves my point.

-----


IANAL

Fair use is a pretty subjective thing that's up to a judge to determine. It's a four-factor test, and you can read more here: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/

* the purpose and character of your use

* the nature of the copyrighted work

* the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and

* the effect of the use upon the potential market.

The fact that it's 2-4 lines may come in as part of factor 3, but the other factors also need to be taken into account.

-----


I think there is a huge difference in what would be considered "fair use" in a commercial, value-generating software product. Fair use as I understand it usually applies to entirely personal use, or quotes used in an editorial, analysis, or critique.

If something I wrote, even just a few lines, is used to generate profit for someone else, and I did not permit that or place it in the public domain, I'm not sure a fair use claim would hold up. IANAL.

-----


Fair use can apply to commercial or for-profit enterprises. You'll find that commercial enterprises are often disadvantaged by some of the factors.

For example, the first factor (purpose and character; transformative nature of the work) is often less transformative in commercial settings. The fourth factor (the effect of the use upon the potential market) is also often more challenging for commercial enterprises to get past.

However, there are plenty of commercial enterprises that rely on fair use regularly. News media is a very common commercial product that relies on fair use.

Copyright and fair use law is pretty much the same for commercial and personal products. If you can make a compelling case to a judge around those four-factors, it can be fair use.

However, when taking clippings from SO and using them directly in a software, you're going to have very hard time making a fair use claim — wether it's for a personal or commercial project.

-----


The great thing about technology is you can always make your own space. You can have a niche website — or other technological forum — that is a bastion of iconoclastic freethinkers.

The problem that you're experiencing is that the mainstream public is now very much using technology. That means the average opinions expressed on the web on the internet have become much more mainstream. Which, pretty much by definition, means the average opinion has become much more hostile to iconoclastic thoughts.

-----


I'm not talking about the mainstream. I'm talking about hiring and funding within our industry. If you haven't noticed a chilling effect over the last few years, maybe you don't have any nonconforming opinions.

-----


I run my own (self-funded) company, so I haven't been subject to hiring or funding in a few years.

I wouldn't be shocked if a future client held our espoused opinions against us. I tend to strongly stand by any opinions that I advocate for publicly, and I'm willing to handle the repercussions from those opinions.

If I felt the repercussions of those opinions were disproportionate I would advocate for those opinions anonymously. The ability to espouse unpopular opinions is the main reason why I strongly advocate for allowing anonymous speech.

-----


And if you make your own space online, then what happens when you lose your job because you were a member/founder of offensive side X?

Heck, look at how much bullshit the Reddit founders have had to wade though?

-----


> it hands veto power to whoever determines what racism is and when something is 'too racist'

This sounds like the function of the free marketplace of ideas. One is allowed to espouse any ideology that you wish. However, other people are allowed to respond with their own speech. They can call the idea racist if they want. They can take away speaking platforms if they want.

Whether a statement is "racist" is a determination made by the current social taboos and mores of a society. I think there are a lot of terrible ideologies out there, and I like that we don't have to give them equal platforms. The free marketplace of ideas means we don't have to "teach the controversy" and give both sides "equal opportunity for debate".

Which is great. There are plenty of people who's methods and ideas I so disagree with that I don't think it's worth my time to listen to them (neo-nazis, members of the Westboro Baptist Church).

-----


This sounds like the function of the free marketplace of ideas. One is allowed to espouse any ideology that you wish. However, other people are allowed to respond with their own speech. They can call the idea racist if they want. They can take away speaking platforms if they want.

Ideally, it operates like the free market of ideas.

In practice, it tends to offer a disproportionate amount of power to those who are most easily offended, and provides them with a de facto "hecklers' veto" over people with views outside the mainstream.

In the Moldbug case, some people wre "so genuinely offended" by the prospect of him speaking (or even being present at the conference) that they were willing to request that his talk offer be revoked. This was the case even when the subject of his talk is completely unrelated to his controversial politics. (Most people would probably agree that a technical conference is the wrong venue for him to speak about his controversial politics.)

Would most people attending the conference have known about his politics if there weren't this outcry to bring publicity? Unlikely. This was a deliberate message to alienate and exclude those with conservative politics from the tech industry.

-----


Similarly, if Jessitron (singling her out solely because she wrote a really good blog post today [1]) wants to talk about microservices in clojure, and folks want to keep her out because of her views on women in technology, you are ok with that also?

Let me also emphasize that no one disputes that strangeloop has the legal right to do this. The discussion is simply over whether the strangeloop organizers are a bunch of anti-intellectuals who deserve to be in the spotlight for their decisions.

[1] http://blog.jessitron.com/2015/06/ultratestable-coding-style...

-----


Again, a disclaimer: I know pretty much nothing about this specific instance except the linked article. I don't know the candidate speaker, their political views, or anything of that nature. No examples in this comment are meant to be reflective of this specific situation.

> "wants to talk about microservices in clojure, and folks want to keep her out because of her views on women in technology"

For me, it comes down to how they express their opinions in the public sphere.

This matters a lot. If someone develops a persona known for lobbing rhetorical grenades, making ad hominem attacks, or is unnecessarily mean or negative, then I don't have a problem holding them out of a conference — even if I agree with their viewpoints.

If they, on the other hand tend to behave in a reasonable way, and are capable of having calm and rational debates, then I would want to see them included in the conference — even if I disagree with their viewpoints.

-----


Then it sounds like you're fully on the side of Yarvin and fully opposed to Strangeloop's actions, since (even when he dared to write about unpopular political opinions) he was never anything less than calm and rational.

-----


It really depends on what her views on women in technology are. If she's pro, then I imagine a conference explicitly trying to ban that category would have little traction, so it hardly matters. If she's con, then yea, sure, ban her from speaking.

-----


There are extremely good game-theoretic reasons to support a policy of allowing full debate on ideas and zero tolerance on attacking the person holding the idea.

Specifically, I'm imagining a degenerate case where there's a norm of killing people who do X, as well as people who don't kill people who do X, as well as people who advocate making the anti-X policy more lenient.

My point is that we can end up in a bad situation that nobody is better off trying to fix. We're arguably in this situation right now with excessive punishment of "sex crimes".

-----


As a disclaimer: I don't have any context outside of the linked article. I don't know the candidate, what viewpoints they hold, or how those viewpoints have been previously expressed.

> "support a policy of allowing full debate on ideas and zero tolerance on attacking the person holding the idea."

If I had infinite time on this planet, I'd agree with you. However, my time is extremely limited. It's the most precious resource I have, so I have to aggressively consider the opportunity cost of listening to every person.

It's more valuable to me to have a debate with someone I disagree with rather than someone I agree with. However, if someone has reached a conclusion that I find to be shockingly suspect ("all foreigners are terrible people"; "protest the funerals of homosexual service-members"), I am not going to spend time listening to any aspects of that person's reasoning.

So, due to my limited time, I'm now punishing this person for expressing their ideas on a specific topic. How does the game-theory deal with the trade-offs of finite time and the opportunity cost of listening to specific speakers?

-----


I think we're talking about slightly different topics here. What I'm hearing from you is along the lines of "I shouldn't feel obligated to spend my time listening to racists about their racist ideology." I was trying to aim more at "we shouldn't interfere with a racist having on-topic technology discussions with third parties." Both the differences are important. Choosing who you will and won't engage with is a different beast than who is and isn't allowed to talk about things. Whether certain topics are appropriate for a given context is a different thing than whether choosing wrong on one topic means you are no longer an appropriate person to talk about another.

In short, I'm encouraging you to ignore the crank, but not censor him from talking about context-relevant topics.

-----


I am not suggesting that racists (however defined) be invited to advocate racism to people who find that repugnant. I'm suggesting that that racism not disqualify them in other matters.

You are quite correct that people can boycott or pressure for no-platform if they want to. Who on earth would benefit from forced contact? What I'm suggesting is that people decide not to do that. Further, that when that does happen, those who disagree speak up about it.

-----


> "What I'm suggesting is that people decide not to [boycott or pressure for no platform]"

I don't like how this argument generalizes.

For example, I am a strong opponent of the labor situation in Qatar as it relates to the World Cup. I want FIFA to either relocate venues or force Qatar to immediately improve their labor practices. Yet, I have no leverage over FIFA, so instead I decide to boycott FIFA's sponsors (Coke, Nike, and Adidas).

Now I'm actively punishing those companies because of their speech. And I'm doing it purely because it's my only way to attempt to change the behavior of an actor two-steps removed from them.

So, now I'd like one of two things:

- Help me find the lines for legitimate boycotts, or

- Help me determine why my boycott of Coke, Nike, and Adidas is a poor decision

-----


Did you tell coke, nike, and adidas that you're boycotting them?

-----


Truth be told, I didn't really "start" boycotting Nike products as I didn't happen to be purchasing much from them already. I included them rhetorically as the three-beat felt much more natural in that context.

I did tell Coke and Adidas.

-----


Boycotting Coca-Cola is extremely challenging: they own a lot of competing "hydration" brands and perhaps even the manufacturing processes used by their direct competitors.

I know several people who think they are boycotting Coca-Cola but are extremely ineffective in managing to do so. Although Coke might be disappointed by the damage to their core brand, they might be less than disappointed when you choose their more profitable products as an alternative.

Good luck!

-----


Yes, and the rejected author can't very well complain because, whether or not his views are "racist", he clearly imagines a society where many people are excluded because of their views.

Any group almost by definition has the right to define policies and police its membership, for any cause (including irrational). No group owes you the right of membership.

-----


Nobody is saying otherwise. Please put that argument away. What everyone here is saying is that the policies and policing they are carrying out is _wrong_.

-----


If you stipulate that argument then you agree that it is only for the group to judge what is right and wrong with regard to its members. Outsiders opinions are irrelevant.

-----


Does that apply to, say, the state of California when it votes to ban gay marriage?

-----


But what does any of that have to do with a talk on urbit?

-----


This is a pretty inaccurate description of life in a game studio.

Games are incredibly unpredictable. Even after Minecraft blew up in popularity, there were tons of risks. Plenty of games have blown up, only to fall off in popularity quickly. Minecraft has been far stickier than most games, which is an easy thing to acknowledge in hindsight, but a pretty challenging thing to predict.

-----


I would argue that the prolonged debate between well-educated and well-respected economists on the topic of government spending[1] indicates that reasoning alone does not lead to a single straightforward answer on the topic.

Since reasoning alone doesn't lead to an obvious answer on this topic, then I would argue that yes, you do need evidence to back up your claims.

> "do you think there's no limit to how much of other people's money governments can spend?"

It's obvious that there exists such a limit. However, the existence of that limit doesn't do anything to help us determine what amount of government spending is the most efficient.

The claim that:

1) There is a maximum amount of government spending possible

2) Therefore, the current government spending is too high

Has the same flaws as:

1) There is a maximum velocity that we can travel (c)

2) Therefore, the current highway speed limit is too high.

[1] For example, there were a large number of respected economists that weighed in on both sides of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

-----


Well then, we can assume that all those economists have also presented evidence to support their cases, but even with evidence, they haven't reached an agreement. Therefore, it's pointless to demand evidence from me either.

You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context.

In ordinary life, efficiency involves maximizing output from input, right? A car can be more fuel-efficient than the previous year's model, and so on.

So you want government spending to be "efficient", but all government spending represents a wasteful middle-man between people and their money and whatever goods and services they need. Therefore, all government spending is "inefficient" from the point of view of the people whose money governments spend.

So I'd say that there's no such thing as efficient government spending. What's efficient is people paying for stuff on a free market with free and unhindered competition among providers. Surely you know how competition works, and results in lower prices and higher quality, right? In other words, free competition results in maximal "efficiency" in an economy.

In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending.

-----


> "Well then, we can assume that all those economists have also presented evidence to support their cases, but even with evidence, they haven't reached an agreement. Therefore, it's pointless to demand evidence from me either."

The main difference being that evidence changes between 2009 and 2015. Maybe there is new evidence since then to really support your claim that I'm not aware of? Evidence is constantly changing. Raw reasoning and logic is not constantly changing. If the only basis we're working from is rational thought, then you should be able to reach the same conclusions that Aristotle did.

Hence, the request for evidence.

> 'You want to know what amount of government spending is the most "efficient", but you should first define what you mean with efficiency in that context.'

I'm using efficiency specifically in the economic context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_efficiency, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_efficiency).

I'm sorry for assuming an economic context for my terms — elsewhere in the thread you asserted that "Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics" so I made the assumption that you were familiar with economic terms. Additionally, I'll be the first to admin that my economics background is merely some early econ classes in college and a general interest afterward. I'd be very interested to hear from any economics if I've badly mucked up any of these concepts.

> "In conclusion, if you want maximal efficiency in the way money is spent, you can't support the idea of any government spending."

I don't think there are many serious economists that you back you up on this assertion. This claims that I would be happier if there were no roads, no water supply, no education systems, no protection from criminals (which technically don't exist because there's no criminal behavior), and no protection from other countries. I absolutely would like some of my money taken and spent on those thing.

I'm happy to debate if the amount of government spending is currently too high or too low; I'm happy to discuss where the best place for it to be is. However, if you would seriously contend that the correct number is zero I think we may be too far apart on a base ideological level to continue this conversation in a productive way. At the very least arguing economics won't get us to any common ground — I think we'd have to switch over to philosophy before we'd find common ground.

-----


> Raw reasoning and logic is not constantly changing.

That's exactly why it's a better foundation for economic conclusions.

Why would you keep requesting evidence even after acknowledging that there's evidence every which way? Anyone can just cherry-pick evidence that suits them, but where does that leave us?

Reasoning based on correct premises works pretty well though.

> I'm sorry for assuming an economic context for my terms — elsewhere in the thread you asserted that "Opposition to UBI comes from people with a clue about economics" so I made the assumption that you were familiar with economic terms.

Let's just say I've seen those terms thrown around, but they're vague and obtuse enough to be practically meaningless. That's hardly surprising, considering their main use is rationalizing government intervention.

For example, no economy can ever reach "pareto optimality": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_optimality .. because every single voluntary exchange leaves both participants better off, because otherwise they wouldn't go through it. Since value is subjective, it really is enough that they both perceive a benefit in the trade.

If you want to argue against that, you'd have to somehow magically know how much I'd be willing to pay for a Ford Fiesta tomorrow at 4pm. But you can't. No one else can. Just like I couldn't possibly know your preferences at some given moment in time.

So yeah, pareto optimality is nonsense, as explained above, and so is a lot of the other stuff involved in these discussions. That's part of why I demanded definitions.

> I don't think there are many serious economists that you back you up on this assertion.

You'd have to look to the Austrian school of economic thought for that, but all of them would agree with me.

> This claims that I would be happier if there were no roads, no water supply, no education systems, no protection from criminals (which technically don't exist because there's no criminal behavior), and no protection from other countries.

All the services you list are provided by people working for a living. Do you want to claim people need governments to tell/force them to work for a living?

> I absolutely would like some of my money taken and spent on those thing.

No you don't. No one wants to be robbed, any more than beaten to a pulp with a baseball bat. What you might be thinking is that you're willing to pay for those services, but that would also apply without getting robbed.

> At the very least arguing economics won't get us to any common ground — I think we'd have to switch over to philosophy before we'd find common ground.

You're right about that :)

-----

More

Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: