ceejay

I imagine the next logical step would be for Netflix to start having their own (inclusive) movie competitions, and in the process more than likely become far more relevant than the exclusive competitions.

I was just thinking. What is a good way to phrase the problem in order to understand whether there are more pros / cons to having the client vs server decide which algorithms to use in a transaction.

I haven't thought this through fully, but as far as I can tell ecosystems on the web evolve. And so I think it's probably a good idea that we architect things for the web in such a way that we don't inhibit that evolution. When you put a decision like encryption algorithm in the client's hands does it feel to anyone else that the security will evolve more rapidly, and thus remain more robust? When the client is deciding, there's a larger pool of people "voting" for what is an acceptable level of security. Even though a lot of those "votes" will be based on the default settings of a library, that library will over time become less popular as more and more people consider it unsafe.

By the same token, if a particular service (server-side) does not keep up with that evolution, fewer and fewer people will use it as other (safer) services pop up.

If the specification requires the server to decide which algorithm to use a naive client, who doesn't know which algorithms are safe or not, is just as dangerous.

As far as I know there are no algorithms that exist today that we can guarantee will never be broken in the future. So algorithm choice inherently must be decoupled from the specification.

EDIT: Or a naive server implementation for that matter...

I used to get annoyed by all the negativity Soylent received from people. Now I just get amused by it. Soylent has been nothing but a positive addition to my life.

Do you think it's more difficult for a person to comprehend that the "workshops" are just as much an opinion as the "hate speech" they're trying to target?

Although that point of view appears to miss the point. It appears the inability to pay for food with the health budget would hide / obfuscate the data that might have otherwise shown a direct correlation between malnutrition and poor health.

Sure you could read a study to get the same information, but unless your own data screams to you what the problem is it's not always easy to convince folks you should be doing anything about it.

Granted, I don't yet know the scope of the project precisely (ie. how detailed and how much information was collected), but if it's as big as I think it is, Steve Ballmer has instantly become one of my favorite people currently inhabiting this planet.

My experience with FedEx's technology stack is minimal, but I can tell you that all publicly exposed FedEx technology (ie. apis, etc) confirm without a shadow of a doubt that FedEx is not a technology company and they should leave the evolution of the web to others.

I think an important thing for a product like this to take off will be integrating a good / open api.

I think hindsight will reveal that the things that make a "distributed company" successful are really the same things that make a "localized company" successful. I think it's just that having all employees on-site probably makes it easier for companies to "fake it" and stumble into success through sheer grit and determination. Probably a lot of times even when they have less-than-adequate (but highly motivated) human resources.

I think simulations will be used to help people live more productive / happy lives in the future. Imagine having many "lives" worth of experience, perhaps from many different periods throughout history, and you're still only 16 years old.

Not just the "matrix" flavor where the goal is to learn specific skills. I'm talking about being born, growing old, and dying in a simulation many times in a matter of hours? / days? / weeks? and being able to recall those experiences / decisions and their rewards and/or consequences once you're back to living your "real" life.

I think the "trick" (not really a trick) is to learn to "see things for what they are". As simple as that sounds, I'm always surprised at how difficult it seems to be for some people. And how I can easily get caught in that trap if I am not being disciplined enough with my own thoughts / learning.

Especially obvious when that lack of discipline helps shape the foundation of one's thoughts on a topic.

Noticed they added Facebook to the LICENSE. Facebook was notorious at one point for some unpopular language in their open source licenses. Does their inclusion in the LICENSE file mean a developer needs to be aware of how Facebook is currently (or in future) licensing React, as well as how Rax is licensed?