gotothrowaway

To cover the currently uninsured/underinsured, I imagine.

I wonder how long before New York City walkers realize they can safely cross in front of Teslas without worrying about getting hit.

How do you figure out the factorizations? I've been looking for an efficient way to do this with really big numbers

I'm not sure in this case, that's true. But whether or not this was illegal I generally support skirting laws if it makes everyone else more secure. To that end, I also support Snowden.

This isn't all that complicated, as far as I can tell.

Guy discloses a vulnerability. He knows it potentially has wide reaching security concerns, and downloads enough data to prove that if necessary.

Guy gets shortchanged on the bounty, indicating that either a) facebook is trying to shortchange him, or b) facebook doesn't realize how big of a vulnerability this truly is

Everything about Facebook's response indicates b): they didn't realize how big a vulnerability this truly was. Otherwise, the data he downloaded would have been useless by the time he used it.

You can argue that the guy "went rogue" by hostaging information, but fact is he deserved to be paid more and he was able to prove it. Now facebook looks bad.

This is interesting only because Mark didn't address it head on from the start, but honestly it's not all that surprising.

Private foundations have something called "expenditure responsibility" which makes giving funds to a taxable entity (a grant) tremendously annoying. Any misstep makes you liable to some massive surcharges, public scrutiny, and potentially major headaches. It's the antithesis to Mark's "move fast and break things"

There's some argument he should push for a public charity instead. There, expenditure responsibility isn't expressly required, but you're still expected to see that the money you grant is used for our charitable purpose, and still subject to audit.

I'm expecting them to write quite the essay in response. On it's face, I don't think people should fault this decision. I'm fully expecting a strong effort to use this money efficiently, which is no easy task with such a massive sum. Check out GiveWells recent post about trying to "give away" Dustin Moskiwitz and Cari Tuna's money - which I believe is an order of magnitude less in volume, but still very challenging.

"To say that more of their ideas will help to solve the very issue they created..."

I don't see how I did that.

I do appreciate your perspective that I spun a cultural issue to support my political agenda. I'd argue that I'm actually doing the opposite, but I agree I did nothing to make that clear

In all honesty, I've long thought that parental influence on college students' decisions - whether it be the choice of college itself or the concept of "helicopter parenting" within college - has the single greatest negative influence on top universities. Without a consistent "expected contribution" across colleges, cost is a dominant factor in the decision process, and we end up with students that don't necessarily want to be studying where they are. I loved my school, and while I felt bad for the kids who complained about being there because they had no choice, I often just wish they'd leave and stop dampening the culture. At top universities, it's similar to someone in YC constantly complaining that they have to try this pesky startup thing.

I also disagree that the effects have existed forever. I think it came with the cultural shift of helicopter parenting, and parents generally making more decisions for their children.

Ultimately though, I support the Bernie Sanders bill because I think it's an interesting way to try and resolve the negative impacts of the cultural shift. It's a bit like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail, but I'm not one to complain about free college (and I do think free public tuition will extend to the private sector, especially quickly at the top university level)

Universities love to complain about needing to react to what parents are saying, but this seems like something they bring on themselves. With such expensive tuition, a student's choice of college often cannot be made independently, and parents feel like they are buying their right to hassle higher educators. I would love to see a world where students truly decide on their own university and the ability for parents to affect the day-to-day of a university is drastically reduced. To me, this is the most interesting aspect of the push for free college.

Is YC positioning itself to become a competitive alternative to traditional universities with YCR?

Like many here, I'm confused with how people could be upset with GMOs but not random mutation. Either could result in the same vegetables.

It turns out - when talking to strongly GMO-opposed persons - it's usually not the genetic modification they're worried about. Instead, it's that a crop has been showered in roundup before we eat it. Saying "anti-GMO" has become a simpler way of saying that you're anti-roundup-sprayed-crops.

Even though I disagree with this redefinition, I've found it to be common among anti-GMO parties. I also consider their real argument much more respectable than actually being opposed to arbitrary genetic mutations.

The business community has figured out a lot of things great for business. Non-Discrimination is on the list, but so is wage-fixing (on one hand) and providing alcohol to minors (on the other).

Leveraging Apple's weight here just seems inappropriately selective to me.

I don't like him citing that discrimation is "bad for business" as anecdotal justification. Tim is the role model, not Apple.

The other day I noticed that they're inlining image data in the src attribute instead of pointing at an external URL. Really taking things to the next level all-around - I wonder when that will become the norm instead of css image sprites.