DavidHm

It's a pretty typical mistake.

We are just as smart as our predecessors. We just have a much higher population, a higher % of them are well educated, and we have an enormous body of historical knowledge (as well as easy ways for anyone to access it).

"On the shoulder of giants" etc.

I am sure that's at least part of the thinking.

And judging from comments here on HN, it seems to be working. Just two post above yours there's a comment stating that any government solution cannot fix the tracking issue, and it can only be addressed by a company or an individual

I work in the industry (yes, the whole debacle has been fairly entertaining).

From what I've heard, Neumann was 100% convinced that the 16Bn financing round was a sure thing (and the rapid growth was how he positioned himself for it). I don't know whether he meant to ride off the sunset, or (as our ceo put it), rely on the fact that even if the business is unsustainable, tens of billions of cash means that you won't go bankrupt for a long time.

A well executed Excel model is much easier to explain to a non-technical person.

To be frank, for all the snobbery towards Excel, it has done a marvelous job at getting millions of people to think in more quantitative ways instead of "business acumen".

No, but the Ireland government would surely object, because their cozy and soft relationship / taxes agreement with the tech giants is the only thing that's keeping them in Ireland.

And yet private organizations so often want to sit on the moral perch and pet themselves about all the non-profit oriented actions they take.

This is such a peculiar, and I have to say, snobby, criticism - especially towards the last part of the article.

The Gioconda is too famous and doesn't deserve the crowd it gets? Maybe. Sounds like a subjective judgement.

People are left disappointed? Maybe. But anyone who does a 10 second search for "is mona lisa worth seeing" should already be aware of that. If they still choose to do that, why should we stop them? (or force them into an overly commercialized pen that deprives a piece of art of its dignity)

By all means, the Louvre should optimize the queuing experience. But as the author admitted, the Louvre doens't have a space capacity issue. And in my books anything that gets more people into a museum of any sort is a good thing.

How come?

Not trying to be snarky, but my experience is almost exactly the opposite.

I can't comment on voting patterns, but while GDPR was being prepared, and after it was released, there was an endless barrage of posts claiming how it was flawed, lead to the ruin of technology companies in Europe etc, and it should be replaced by something else (anything else, at some point in the future - and in the meanwhile please stop getting in the way of tech companies trying to make a profit)

Frankly I would not be surprised if there was indeed a reflexive downvote effect that is not caused by a shady conspiracy but rather people like me who are tired of posts like that.

This was extremely fascinating. Thanks for posting.

So this is interesting; assuming that this doesn't go to the Supreme Court or is otherwise unchanged by it, it could mean that after some states implement their own laws (and fight off the inevitable lobby/lawsuits attempts to stop from from doing so ), this could go down two ways:

1) The ISPs create two (or mor) versions of their packages that they can offer/operate in different states - this would be quite expensive (and I suspect in some cases quite difficult too), but it would allow them to leech extra profit off the hides of customers not protected by state law; it would generate a bit of outrage when users see their family and friends in other parts of the country are better off, but I doubt that will make the whole system collapse

2) Or they will give in and accept the higher(highest?) standard, similar to what's happening for car emissions. I am maybe too cynical, but I doubt that will happen so easily.

Car emissions are a secondary thing for manufacturers - they can grumble, but at the end of the day it's just a bit of extra cost. The repeal of net neutrality is a matter of life or death for ISPs - it's what will make the difference between them being able to maintain outsized profits and power in their nice little oligopoly, vs becoming dumb pipes.

This might be a personal impression, but there seems to be a reflexive (negative) response from many posters here regarding any new regulation that the EU produces.

I've been trying to wrap my head about whether that's different than the negative response about any regulation in general (including the US one), and I feel like it is more negative; as for why, I would only be speculating.

See, I wasn't sure whether that's a typo or the way an AI would refer to us.

Do you by any chance have a link to that video, or remember the name? I'd very very curious to see it.