this. Vimeo is great, but we've seen hardly any continued development in the last 10 years. It looks exactly the same now as it did 10+ years ago. In order to pursue the market you need to keep coding, adding things, trying things. Discovery, yes! W/o discovery you're sunk. But there are 20 other things you could do to defrictionize the platform. And 20 more you could do to improve its reach. Scale will come with the audience graph justifies the expenditure. I would argue that YouTube's recent machine-learning suggestions actually totally ffing suck. The way they were 8 years ago was incredibly better. This is one area you could challenge them in. Be a YouTube of 2014 and you could beat them in suggestion.
This article is completely wrong. Slashdot, Digg and Reddit were already at 100% of full-power way before Google Reader ever shut down. And him citing that the causes are unknown is so completely naive. It's obvious. And it was obvious at the time to many who used RSS in 2012. Google is in the ad business, and RSS doesn't do adds. Not really, and not then. They realized they were competing with themselves and closed it; it's that simple. God, I feel like I got baited to reading that post because there was no new or insightful information whatsoever other than the title line. We should bring back RSS, and make the web more about conversations and communicating, than listicles and click-bait. 5-10MB of Javascript per page load, 1px tracking images, endless stupid ads, and now every single site that I go to has a pop-over that I should sign up for something, which gets in the way of the content that I am only going to spend 30 seconds reading anyway and then never return to that site ever again. The web has very quickly become a cesspool of non-information. It's like a bad shopping mall.
> listicles and click-bait. 5-10MB of Javascript per page load, 1px tracking images, endless stupid ads, and now every single site that I go to has a pop-over that I should sign up for something, which gets in the way of the content that I am only going to spend 30 seconds reading anyway and then never return to that site ever again
This exactly describes my experience on this website.
Am in the same boat. Have 15 years programming experience, and can literally code circles around many or most of the people I am interviewing with, but because I don't have a degree, or interview poorly, I am getting rejection after rejection. It's funny. I always think about the Frank Zappa sketch: "What's in a diploma? A: Absolutely nothing." It's a piece of paper, but I guess it is a symbol of your subservience to a system, which in kind shows you are good at deferring to authority or something. If I were hiring, I would explicitly go after non-degreed programmers who show they can code. Dogmatic college kids often write terrible code, but they proceed with unchecked hubris because everyone tells them they're great, even though they never paid any dues or done real systems programming.
When talking to me someone once referred to a degree as a "de facto dues card" and, that's basically what they are in many cases. Sure you need an education to be a doctor, a lawyer, an engineer, things that require licensing but come on, my employer doesn't care what your 4-year is in...it could be in Late 15th century Peruvian funerary basket weaving... and that's fine with them, they just want that accredited degree.
With companies that have rejected me for not having one the past 18 months, I've found that (via LinkedIn) a notable percentage of their employees have random liberal arts degrees and then 2 years out of college they are on their 3rd-5th job upgrading their title at each stop...
Hi, hello, I've been at my job 13 years. I'm in it for the long haul if you pay me well, I only want to leave my current employer because after 13 years on the job I make a whopping 34k a year in a state where the hourdly median wage was 16.25 in 2016 which is within 500 dollars of what I make (a bit less I think). When people were making a big fuss to raise minimum wage to 15$ a year or three ago, I was like "no, that's what I make after 10-12 years on the job and I know my employer won't increase my pay!"
"subservience to the system" -- frankly theres a large degree of difference between someone being subservient and someone playing the game (one in which the rules are discussed ad-nauseam for a good decade in primary school at that). Believing that college is completely worthless & that people don't really gain anything there is its own form of unchecked hubris, so we do agree on really narrowing that down in the workplace, at least.
There goes another great product, killed by Microsoft. M$ doesn't understand open source. They infuse their products with too much politicking and marketing, trying to lead clients when open source is functionally the inversion of this. It is product defined by user needs, not top-down high-priests deigning what we should have. They always get it wrong. Oh well.
What bothers me is that nowhere in both articles I read do they once mention: "what if it wasn't what we are postulating it is." That tact of reasoning is never explored. The entirety of their position is foregone conclusion. I'm not saying they are wrong or right, but first of all, it seems entirely unlikely due to everything we already know. Second of all there are no human remains, just some rocks that _kind_of_ resemble tools and some broken bones that they can date. It is closer to flight of fantasy that proven fact. I wish they would approach it as such while chasing their hypothesis. I would feel much easier about it. But I suppose people who don't brandish brazen egos are much less likely to get the front-page stories.....
The questioning you claim to be looking for starts in the second paragraph of the NPR piece and continues throughout the article. Trying reading it through and counting each time one of the scientists quoted says something like “if true”, “it's an outlier”, etc. or talks about the additional evidence they'd like to see or challenges yet to be explained.
I agree with your criticisms. It doesn't seem clear that these rocks were used for what they claim. I recently found what I believed was an arrowhead. It is symmetrical and sharp on both edges, but it is not an arrowhead. It is a rock that looks like an arrowhead and my wishful thinking pushed it the rest of the way. If I were that researcher I would have claimed that I found the real thing.
