_gd3l

"After PRISM Revelations" simply means "After PRISM was revealed", since it was hidden from the public before. So, Snowden revealed the existence and scope of PRISM to the group of people whose search behavior this study is analyzing (the general public).

Not an emotional word and, overall, not bad writing in the study.

Maybe this has value, is good or bad, whatever: but be clear with restaurants that you're a for-profit scalping business making money off their inventory.

The douchiness of scalping reservations can be argued....

But there is not a single logical defense for LYING to the restaurants about being an individual. Writing a blog post about why you're lying doesn't make it okay, either.

Be clear with businesses about what you're doing with what THEY broke their backs to build, and let them opt in if they want. Cool, could be a good service and help some restaurants out or something.

But stop lying. That is douchey, is unethical in every way with no justification, and is worthy of all negative media — regardless of how overkill SF media can be sometimes.

Stop lying.

The history and incredible, incredible use of hemp is extremely overlooked in general. Good luck finding it mentioned more than in passing in a high school text book, or finding a politician aware of the fact that it's almost incomprehensibly better for paper, clothing, and could create - oh my god - so many jobs, the thing a lot of politicians seem to be talking about and promising; but directly preventing (this is both parties, by the way).

Nevermind what a specific college or professional sports organization has to say about this; maybe someday they'll start thinking themselves, perhaps with the help of some substances, and realize that maybe the "college entrance exams, program entrance exams, and other educational competitions" are themselves a bit silly in the context of trying to truly find important ideas.

If they're stupid and sacrificing the quality of the actual art/software/website/thing, that's not good. It's easy to get mad at this.

And when there's so many of these types of people doing so much damage and causing so much waste, that's really not good. It's very easy to get mad at this.

I am not saying such apps are useless; I'm building one now for a marketplace with pretty shitty UI.

But it's not an innovation.

Actually, the last thing the tech world needs is stuff like this, from the article:

If a startup is pre-product/market fit, growth hackers can make sure virality is embedded at the core of a product. After product/market fit, they can help run up the score on what’s already working.

Stop making up "markets" and "niches", then making crappy products to try and be "viral" in these areas, then calling yourself a "growth hacker" or something as ridiculous and valueless.

Build something because you love it, not because a "growth hacker" determined that it was a "pre-market fit".

No. Two things. First, taking this study and applying it to "money" is very correlative, and a decent leap considering the methods for the study. The real value of this study, if there's any at all, is about someone having huge unfair advantages in a general sense; having freedom to treat someone however you want because they don't have the means to rebel.

And second, the examination of this isn't new at all. Heart of Darkness, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Apocalypse Now, King Leopold's Ghost, tons and tons of artists have examined what happens when someone has an unfair advantage without consequence; those are just some I plucked quickly, but there are so many.

I'm not saying the point is completely invalid. In a lot of cases, money gives people the exact freedom, privilege, and less-restrained power that leads to this behavior.

But saying "Research suggests more money makes people less human" based on a rigged monopoly game where the other person is severely relatively handicapped is...a bit of a leap, to say the least.

The other studies mentioned in the article don't sound very convincing, either.

quizzes, online games, questionnaires, in-lab manipulations, and field studies that living high on the socioeconomic ladder can, colloquially speaking, dehumanize people

Quizzes/questionnaires are notoriously prone to being bullshit, like the China Study's questionnaires including "Pizza" as meat and the book going on to draw correlations between its definitions of "meat" and diseases like cancer. I'd way rather see more info on the "in-lab manipulations and field studies", it was only touched on briefly, it seemed.