Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: But Windows surveillance (Score 1) 84

Microsoft makes their money in commercial software and services all other experiments notwithstanding. Google make some money advertising to people and building profiles and people to better Target than advertising all the other experiments notwithstanding. Can you see the difference?

Not really, no. Sorry.

Microsoft makes really complete profiles on individual persons.
Google makes really complete profiles in aggregate for demographic markets.

Microsoft makes business decisions based on profile data telling them how many people they can reach with a given product.
Google makes business decisions based on profile data telling them the size of each demographic their advertiser can reach with their product.

Microsoft makes a lot of products that fail, when they try to do something new.
Google makes a lot of software and services with the intent of delivering advertising that fail, when they try something new.

Microsoft makes a lot of money, when they stick to their core competencies (a small range of OS and office productivity products).
Google makes a lot of money when they stick to their core competencies (a small range of advertising services, search, and mail).

Microsoft loses money when they step outside their core competency, and try "charge for service" models.
Google loses money when they step outside their core competency, and try "charge for service" models.

Kinda not seeing the difference, Bruno...

Comment Steve Case is high. (Score 2) 35

Steve Case is high.

The article starts out claiming AOL was there at the start of the Internet, and helped pave the way -- but really, "MeTooLand" (AOL) only connected itself to the Internet through a number of large VAX machines, in a last ditch attempt at to maintain relevance, in the face of educated kids asking their parents why they are paying so much money to AOL for what amounts to Internet access. AOL was the sugary cereal "adjacent to this complete breakfast".

He states that "innovation can happen anywhere" (it can) and that "we should be funding outside traditional central areas" (debatable).

And then his three examples are Sweetgreen, Framebridge, and OrderUp, which are all within one hour driving distance of each other in the DC/Baltimore metroplex.

In other words: he's funding outside of "traditional central areas" by declaring a new central area, and then claiming it's not central.

My interpretation of this, and the specific mention of these there portfolio companies for Revolution Growth, where Steve Case works, is that the VC is starting to see that a VC needs multiple VC's when it invests in a risk company, in order to spread the risk, and that no one is coming to their party.

Comment Re:But Windows surveillance (Score 2) 84

This is a nice reminder of who and what the REAL threat is. Windows 10 data collection is not the problem. Microsoft doesn't define it's existence on profiling and targeting people, but Google does.

Microsoft doesn't do it because they can't make a cell phone that people want to buy, to save their lives.

It's not like they haven't tried, many times, including buying most of a company that was capable of making cell phones, only to have the parts drift through their fingers, like sand at a beach.

Microsoft would definitely do it if they could work it out, or buy a company that doesn't dissolve as a result of being bought by them.

Comment Re:This thread makes me think (Score 2) 288

The primary effect of LSD is that it breaks down the brains ability to perceive and evaluate those perceptions. This is not experienced as a loss of ability (internally) as many of the processes involved in perception are inhibitory in nature. If you switch off the negative signals about possible perceptions that do not match the incoming data from the environment then suddenly the brain sees a lots more hits, and there is a massive spike in reinforcement - everything feels cool as fuck and makes perfect sense because your brain is awash in the neurotransmitters that reward observing patterns. Of course the brains spends a lot of time observing and evaluating itself in relation to its observations of the world, and so the same rush of positive associations will occur about "deep personal development".

What is really happening? Hard to say: my guess is that our brains are constantly searching for equilibrium and taking a psychedelic causes a massive batch of noise in the search process. It does seem to cause to long-term changes in people's attitudes towards themselves, and the people around them. I've not seen any evidence that those changes are consistent across people - the only consistent pattern is that it changes their relationship to the world. I would speculate that it is just random noise, kicking a vast chunk of their learned behaviour into a different equilibrium. The perception that the change is accessing "a higher state of consciousness" is just another form of buying into some bullshit.

My take on it is that LSD provides access to a type of experience that is unavailable to most people: psychosis. The experience of un-evaluated perception of reality. Whether or not that experience has any value does not seem to have a universal answer, and depends largely on where people are in their lives, what they take into that experience, and what they hope to gain from it. Interpreting a measurement of one property of a brain that may correlate with a level of consciousness in some forms of test is simply reckless.

Comment Re:move on (Score 1) 366

The world that we live in is made of alternative facts. Borges wrote extensively on the hyper-reality that we live within, long before it became fashionable. We deal so infrequently with actual facts that as a species we look at second-hand analyses and inferences and convince ourselves that we are dealing with the real thing. On the subject of which, crime statistics:

Split a population into three categories:
A: natives
B: integrated immigrants
C: non integrated immigrants

Assume it takes 10+ years to move from group C to group B (if ever). Assume that the three groups are hetrogeneous in most statistics that we can measure. Any measurement is a sample at a point in time, it does not take into account drift between these categories.

Where are the raw "facts" now? Do they still exist?

If the crime rate in (B+C) is 100x larger than in A, what does that tell us about A vs B, or about B vs C? If the measurement lag is 10 years so that it is on the order of magnitude as drift then does it tell us anything at all?

Comment Re:Working from home is career suicide (Score 1) 73

I've worked in 3 employee companies, and 30.000+ ones, east, west, and midwest. The only stack ranking, ever, occurred only when there were impending "layoffs." And that ranking was alway done by direct management, and not cliquish peers. Shove your business-talk terminology (really, "Nash equilibrium?" Are you a fcking leach of an MBA, unable to produce value on your own?) where it won't see the sun, because it's part of the toxic culture.

I'm not an MBA. I've worked at IBM, Apple, Google, and half a dozen other companies. Only the small ones -- mostly startups -- didn't do stacked ranking.

If your 30,000+ employee companies that don't practice peer review, they must not be Fortune 500 technology companies, because in any technology firm of any size: stacked ranking with peer review" is how it's done.

You may think it's toxic; I prefer to think of it as "a very very large paycheck".

Comment Re:Working from home is career suicide (Score 1) 73

You work in a very toxic environment. I have no desire to work there.

Well, I can definitely sympathize with not wanting to work for a company of more than 50 employees in the technology sector, but it kind of is what it is. If you worked an agricultural job, unless you remote control a "robot" tractor (is a waldo/drone really a robot? Since when?), your in every day.

There's a great belief in sympathetic magic in this sector, where if you "Do like Google/Facebook/Twitter/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/... does, and you will be successful, like Google/Facebook/Twitter/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/... are".

Stacked ranking is one of those things, and so that's what the cargo cult imitates -- particularly since it's what they know, given that the startups are primarily being shed like dandruff off these companies, as soon as a group of enough likeminded employees all get an RSU payday at more or less the same time.

There are certain emergent properties to stacked ranking, and one of them is "The remote employee gets thrown under the bus, when graded on a curve, by peers, and your ability to keep your job is a competition".

Anyone who has done a mathematical regression analysis and a study of the corporate culture, can tell you what the other emergent properties are.

Get pissy, don't like it, call it eco-unfriendly to commute instead of working at home -- it is what it is, and the Nash Equilibrium is what the math makes it.

So lump it.

Comment Re:move on (Score 1) 366

It's a shame that you are focusing on quantity over quality - see if you can condense your mess of thoughts into the key points.

The problem isn't the text in DN or "my failure to provide good links", the problem is rather that the data is so fucking hard to find.

Yes, that is a standard problem when you try to fit the data to your perceptions. Try doing it the other way around.

Irrelevant and just an attempt to excuse the raw data. The immigrants are like they are. They aren't Swedes. Any adjusted data would be false data. And the thing is that even if you adjust it they won't be on par with Swedes anyway.

The confounding factors are never irrelevant to the issue of what the data tells us vs what we project onto it. Do you understand what the confounding factors are in attempting to draw an interpretation from these raw statistics?

That immigrants commit more crimes than Swedes,

This is demonstrably false. You seem to be mixing relative and absolute measures, which is understandable given your weak grasp of what has been measured.

Comment Re:move on (Score 1) 366

How sad. It is difficult to say if it is cognitive dissonance with you, or just a lack of ability to reason.

The opinion piece from DN in 2005 is not data. Can you not tell the difference? A real discussion about "data" would involve issues such as: what were the confounding factors in the study?, what was the method of data collection?, are the results significant? what can be inferred safely from the data and what is over-interpretation?. The report that you link to has been discussed to death, but given that you are putting forward as an authority, here is what they have to say about it:

In recent times, simplistic and occasionally completely inaccurate information about Sweden and Swedish migration policy has been disseminated. Here, the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs looks at some of the most common claims.

Claim: "There has been a major increase in the number of rapes in Sweden."

Facts: The number of reported rapes in Sweden has risen. But the definition of rape has broadened over time, which makes it difficult to compare the figures. It is also misleading to compare the figures with other countries, as many acts that are considered rape under Swedish law are not considered rape in many other countries.

For example: If a woman in Sweden reports that she has been raped by her husband every night for a year, that is counted as 365 separate offences; in most other countries this would be registered as a single offence, or would not be registered as an offence at all.

Willingness to report such offences also differs dramatically between countries. A culture in which these crimes are talked about openly, and victims are not blamed, will also have more cases reported. Sweden has made a conscious effort to encourage women to report any offence.

Claim: "Refugees are behind the increase in crime, but the authorities are covering it up."

Facts: According to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention's Swedish Crime Survey, some 13 per cent of the population were the victim of an offence against them personally in 2015. This is an increase on preceding years, although it is roughly the same level as in 2005.

The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention has conducted two studies into the representation of people from foreign backgrounds among crime suspects, the most recent in 2005. The studies show that the majority of those suspected of crimes were born in Sweden to two Swedish-born parents. The studies also show that the vast majority of people from foreign backgrounds are not suspected of any crimes.

People from foreign backgrounds are suspected of crimes more often than people from a Swedish background. According to the most recent study, people from foreign backgrounds are 2.5 times more likely to be suspected of crimes than people born in Sweden to Swedish-born parents. In a later study, researchers at Stockholm University showed that the main difference in terms of criminal activity between immigrants and others in the population was due to differences in the socioeconomic conditions in which they grew up in Sweden. This means factors such as parents' incomes, and the social circumstances in the area in which an individual grew up.

Swedish government agencies have nothing to gain from covering up statistics and facts; they seek an open and fact-based dialogue. Sweden is an open society governed by a principle of public access to official documents. This means that members of the public, e.g. private individuals and media representatives, have the right to insight into and access to information about the activities of central and local government.

Comment Re:Working from home is career suicide (Score 1) 73

For knowledge workers, it's mostly dependent on their ability to contribute. Technology provides many ways to collaborate without physical presence.


If it's remote you, or my in the office lunch buddies... who do you think we are all going to throw under the stacked ranking bus, come peer performance review time?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)