gervase

This is pretty cool, and the first I've heard of the SOS Fund. Was this something that you actively sought out, or did they come to you?

> Apple users seem far more willing to pay for small useful applications from indie developers so more indie developers put more effort into producing small useful and beautiful apps for Mac.

This rings true to me as well, but why is this the case? If we roughly assume that Mac users are 1 order of magnitude fewer than Windows users, they must be >1 OOM more likely to pay for these kinds of apps to generate this impression.

I struggled with this puzzle for quite a while when I switched from Mac to Windows. Utilities are simply not comparable, either in design, functionality, or simple quantity, for a market which is (on paper) both much larger and much older (if you restrict your view to the OS X era).

As an aside, it totally makes sense to me why Linux utilities are numerous and awesome, but have (usually) poor graphic design, because that Bauhaus-esque function over form describes how I prefer to work, too.

> If it fails, you know they aren't. And if it succeeds, well, then you know they are.

This problem is solved in an interesting way by Keybase Chat, in which messages sent to non-existing accounts are "delivered", and can then be read if that account is created later on. It requires re-keying of the message by the sender, so it's not exactly a "fire and forget" solution, but it's pretty neat anyway.

When I was running hiring at a previous startup, we ran into this issue often. When I proposed adding FizzBuzz to our screening process, I got a fair amount of pushback from the team that it was a waste of the candidates' time.

Once we'd actually started using it, though, we found it filtered between 20-30% of our applicant pool, even when we let them use literally any language they desired, presumably their strongest.

However, it usually only filtered fresh grads (CS students from top-10 schools). Those with previous work experience almost never had a problem.

If you replace "punish" with "control" I think that's an easily-extensible template, because isn't that ultimately tied to the personal ethics of the employee?

<Some Company>: hey dude want to work for a company whose job it is to help manipulate and control people by violating their privacy through big data?

Engineer: sure! Just as long as it doesn't violate this very specific aspect of my personal ethics!

That could easily describe Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc.

> This is a horrible idea that breaks the idea of secret ballot and opens up all sorts of vote buying, coercion and intimidation.

Not at all; the parent said "taken into account in the final tally", not "see that their vote was counted as they intended".

This is very similar to the system for paper ballots, with a tear-off receipt. If you type in the ID number, you can verify that that ballot was counted. There is no association between identity, vote choice, or ballot ID.

From the article, it seems they're dealing with demand fluctuations of 1000-3000 MW within a given hour (2PM was the example), so I think it's really working on a totally different scale. Even 10x as many batteries wouldn't be able to smooth that load fluctuation.

I think this is a natural outcome of the peer review process; you're not targeting research papers at statistical models, you're targeting them at human reviewers. This kind of behavior is equally prevalent in many fields, including computer science.

I recently reviewed a paper from a research team in China, on a scalable and ubiquitous ad hoc sensing platform. The presented "spin" was that it could potentially be useful for monitoring power distribution networks, thereby reducing blackouts, which was certainly true. However, it could also have been used for an inescapable, totalitarian panopticon (this part was implicit and unstated).

As a reviewer with explicit instructions to evaluate the ethical implications of the work, is it my responsibility (A) to interpret the stated "spin", (B) extract and evaluate strictly the technical contributions of the work, or (C) all of the above, and the implicit "anti-spin" interpretation that was provided courtesy of my Western worldview?

And here's a twist - six months previously, a similar situation occurred with my own work, in which a technology that I envisioned (spun) being used for disaster relief caught the eye of an alphabet agency for low-cost, secure data collection in third world theaters. This was deeply shocking to me at the time, because I hadn't considered this potential use case when I was developing the system. I had spun its impact so effectively in my own mind, I didn't even see the negative alternative.

It's my observation that human brains will inject their own spin if it doesn't already exist, using the social and cultural norms to which that brain is accustomed. I don't hold a researcher's desire to sell their work as effectively as possible against them, especially if the person to whom they're selling most effectively is themselves.

Agreed. I don't object to company or founder exposés such as these, but I do find the article's focus on the founders' age to be misplaced and distasteful. I also think that these kinds of breathless adorations of the latest "wunderkind" to contribute to the widespread perception/reality of ageism within the industry.

I understand it makes for a more click-attracting title, but imagine if the title was "Silicon Valley's Latest Unicorn Is Run By an Asian" - it sounds offensive, at least to me. Preferably the articles would focus on something other than a protected class.

Note that age is not technically a protected class, only "advanced age", defined as 40+, but I personally think that making unbounded age a protected class would be beneficial for everyone. Refusing to hire someone because they're "too young" is equally as offensive as refusing because they're "too old".