gopher2

I thought the article was "alright"

My impression is sometimes people see a certain topic and want to talk about it and upvote. Regardless of it being high quality article or novel. Not saying that's right but it happens.

And sometimes low-quality content gets a better signal, because people want to pick it apart in the comments. Which looks engaging to the ranking rules.

With or without the opening statement being true, which is a matter of opinion, it's a pretty interesting city sociologically.

I'd like a better (paid) way to search for medical advice/information

Business Insider: we haven't read these documents and are "combing through them" right now, but they're explosive!

I’ve found Ray Dalio’s macro pontificating to be kind of useless. Remember when we were having a “beautiful deleveraging.” Now we’re in a “great sag.”

Makes more sense to me that these guys are just talking their book at a conceptual level because reflexivity.

For #3 you can go to their profile and block them if they're really worth it. I think you only get like 100 blocks and then you just have to suffer through the motivational inspiration-porn quotes :)

Thanks. TIL this is a real thing. Let the bilateral negotiations begin!

Now what?

Is there a legal designation or meaning to currency-manipulator I'm unaware of, or is this basically like the Chinese designating Trump a "name-caller."

I'll accept my payment in stock.

There's like one sentence of "because I said so" analysis in this article. The idea that Facebook is dying because MAU is growing faster than DAU is basically ... dumb. Both numbers are going up. Facebook users are growing. Feels like people just like upvoting anything anti-Facebook even if the content doesn't really make the case well or at all.

For me it's mostly that I don't like overly-promotional liars. And the "saving the world" schtick wears thin. Hate would be a strong word though.

I don't think this would help our social fabric, which the article says Google is "tearing apart." Why do we need to break Google's monopoly on search again? Which they don't actually have.

Of course they are! There are user researchers, people looking for spam and abuse, people tagging data, among other things who are absolutely looking at your: private messages, search queries, profiles viewed, Alexa conversations, Tinder messages, bookmarks, call history, purchase history, geolocation history... and on and on. I guess there are a lot of news stories left to write on this topic.

The large price fluctuations that bitcoin has are also undesirable for some.