spiek

I quit Twitter when Elon took it over. It provided me with:

Easy access to information and articles about breaking news events.

Community.

A feed of interesting articles and discussions.

Enjoyment gained from following quickly evolving memes, discussions, and jokes.

A way to verbalize incidental thoughts, and the pleasure of crafting those thoughts into small nuggets to share with my friends.

Of course there are many negative aspects to Twitter, but those are the things I found value in.

That's fine, then reinforce it with a comment that is interesting, and not a useless cliche.

It's everybody's responsibility to ensure the quality of the discussion remains high.

This is such an annoying and useless comment. This same comment is parroted EVERY time there's an article about robots anywhere on the Internet. How are you adding anything to the discussion at all?

One unique advantage seems to be that it can jump over obstacles. Something that rotates/rolls (presumably) is more difficult to get over obstacles.

I always thought that Kim Stanley Robinson's "meta nationals" from the Red Mars series seemed too probable to really be science fiction.

I played WoW for a few years, from vanilla to the level 80 cap days (pugging Naxx was an interesting experience).

I used to love wandering around the world, finding hidden spots, and exploring the different pieces of Azeroth.

Now I'm older and feel way too guilty devoting that amount of time to a game.

Incidentally, one of the main pleasures of Minecraft (for me) was the same exploration.

They raised ~1 mil in 2 weeks. So they thought they could then raise 5x that amount in 2x the time? How is that a rational conclusion?

It's funny that you say that 2048 "gets really boring" after a while, but that it is "more fun to play than Threes".

It's interesting that the balance and effort that went into Threes resulted in a game that (to me) is more complex and possesses more staying power. However, it is still regarded as not as good as a game with more immediate gratification and significantly less staying power.

edit: for clarification.

Al Jazeera wants you to move to St. Louis.

As someone living in New York, my most common response to these sorts of article is:

1: Okay, but I can't just pick up and go to some artist's utopia. I have a job and (hopefully) a career to think about. I made the decision to move to New York years ago and now for better or worse I'm here, and working in a job that is not super common elsewhere.

2: Okay, New York Sucks (Big Cities Suck), so where should we go? Portland, OR where there are no jobs? Austin, same? St. Louis, apparently?

3 (Bonus/most confusing): If you work in tech, are just starting out in your career, where is the intersection of a city with robust tech scene to provide you jobs, and yet low rent and thriving art scene?

What is "hipsterism"?

You realize you can do all of those things and still make not very much money, right? You also realize that people in different economic situations aren't privileged to receive all of the institutional knowledge about the job market that you may have? That some people don't even think about becoming doctors or lawyers or programmers because they dont know anyone who became those things? There are a huge number of reasons why some people may not be able to make the same amount of money someone at google can make. Does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to live in SF?

Eh? Torrez says "@edcasey If last week taught us anything it is that everything on the internet is fake. So I am covering my bases." Doesn't seem like he is seriously alleging that this guy is a plant.