derialstrazus

I can see where you're coming from, but I think in practice this is not a great idea. Even if it's not intentional, it's not going to be great publicity when you have an app that shows different women with different price tags.

I imagine it's not great either if, on current dating apps, the number of messages women receive becomes public information. The problem here is less that different women cost different prices to message. The problem is that it's visible. If you can overcome this there might be some merit to the idea. This is just me being open-minded though. It still feels like an icky idea.

I would say that all these alternative goals you mentioned can be classified as preparing.

It depends on what are the consequences for failure. In war, lack of preparation means death of your men at minimum, and the collapse of your nation at worst. In training, failure makes you stronger. It's a good argument for managers to create a working environment where employees are not afraid to fail. I absolutely agree that starting early is the best and fastest way to learn. Too many people avoid it because of the negative consequences for making mistakes.

But he's complaining about them only listening to top 40s music. And nothing else he's said implies that only generic mass consumption pop culture matters. Naming a band doesn't imply naming mainstream band, it just implies name A band, ANY band, and have a bit of preference or taste. Same for movies. Nothing jammygit has said implies that they need to like the same things he does. He is, however, implying that they don't like ANYTHING.

Apologies if I implied intimidation and lying are good traits. However, I do maintain that they are alpha traits. Lying, maybe not sure much, but intimidating, definitely. Being alpha isn't necessarily a good thing. Like all labels, and especially for a label as complicated as "alpha", there are good and bad parts to it.

Honestly I dislike using the term alpha, because it's so inflammatory. Its hard to talk about what alpha means without bringing up beta, and the moment you use those two words then it sounds like redpill-speak. However, there are certain kinds of people who are confrontational and very much extroverted, the kinds who don't back away when challenged. I see alpha as a way to describe these traits as they are, with no moral conclusions attached.

For sure Chess players can display alpha traits, but it's hard to see how Chess players are MORE alpha than Diplomacy players. An entire game of Chess can finish without a single word exchanged, and it's rare and unprofessional for violence to show up in Chess, though it does show up time to time. In diplomacy, violence, albeit only verbal, is the norm. A nonconfrontational person will never survive in diplomacy, but they can do well in Chess.

I don't deny chess is the game with the higher status, but I don't think that's what the term alpha was trying to get at. Alpha here is used in a social context, ie the leader of a pack. Some traits of an alpha, as opposed to a beta, include being aggressive, intimidating, capable of convincing others to join your agenda, and willing to lie for your benefit. It's hard to display alpha traits in a one on one game like chess.

Our legal structure needs to catch up and punish companies who use data that we did not authorize. Data should be seen as personal property.

I think we're arguing about semantics here. I can see a valid reason for giving away my information if I know it will be used responsibly. I would like to let Google have my information if it helps turns my phone into a better assistant. I would like to extend segments of this information (namely location) to Uber and Lyft so that I can get rides easier. I would NOT like Google to sell my information to third parties that I have not agreed to, and this extends to Uber and Lyft as well. I want to choose which services get to use my data, and I want there to be consequences if those services leak my data.

Now you may say that you can't trust corporations with this responsibility, but what if there WAS something we could do to enforce that responsibility? How much control I have over my information should be left up to me, and it would be great if an entity I trust could enforce that. As of this moment, we don't have that option. However, it doesn't mean that such a future is impossible. If we argue about it enough, maybe the technology and the courts can find a way to make it happen.

It's so accurate to call this a Sputnik moment for China. I wonder if we'll see a face off between AlphaGo and a Chinese Go AI sometime in the future.

I'm just starting out in my career, but what do they mean by "good enough to work for us"? Is there a way to measure this metric? And how do I know if I'm there?

My personal understanding (as a web developer) had always been, someone who is "good enough" is someone who can build a system from the ground up, with the capability to handle requests at high capacity and manage performance. BUT, this would just be an advanced CRUD app and I fail to see how that would reach a salary of $500,000 a year.

It looks like ShellyPalmer has a special focus on machine learning and data science. Perhaps their requirements are beyond what I am even aware of.