To compare, you need to measure the attributes of the this and the compared entity.
The alternative entity compared in this case is the Existing Financial System that is handled by the Fed, Wall Street and the Bankers.
Now, there are innumerable number of comparisons and metrics that have already done this job for their preferred metrics and statistics. They all unequivocally side on the side of Bitcoin. (one example: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/)
You are free to ignore these comparisons; but you have to compare and contrast that how cryptocurrencies, if ponzi compare to the modern financial system of all it's warts and what is the net effect of Cryptocurrencies and the Financial system as it exists today; rather than simply stating Cryptocurrencies are in and of themselves Ponzi.
And many such diverse areas, even though you might be just toiling away to store and obtain some data in a database. Opens up horizons and makes you feel empowered.
On the other hand, some other programming communities are too obsessed with their testing frameworks and task runners.
If I like the sheer horse power of a BMW, would it be snark to contrast it with some other car's priorities over leather seats?
There are plenty of cars (programming languages) with varied priorities. Identifying and labelling them is very useful in context to make ones own calls.
If you had written a comment which summarized a recent BMW convention that you enjoyed and wanted to share links to interesting things discussed at the convention, and you ended it with "On the other hand, some other cars are too obsessed with <insert irrelevant opinion here>", then yeah, I would consider that snark.
If you instead say "BMW prioritizes horse power, which is why I like it better than X, which seems to prioritize <insert something else here>", then (1) your tone is much less snarky, (2) you've given context to your comment (the BMW horsepower - without that, it is much more snarky), and (3) you've opened up the thread to encourage discussion and alternative opinions, instead of shutting it down with your original tone and phrasing.
My understanding of Python and its community is that they have good solutions for basic problems and so they have the luxury of focussing on cool or esoteric stuff.
Also a lot of the power of Python comes from the extensive ecosystem, so the fact that certain domain problems are made easy in Python is itself an achievement of the language.
Largest Management Consulting Firm - Locations - New York, San Jose CR, Prague, Gurgaon.
Digitisation team has roles open for multiple positions. I lead the Client Side Development - iOS Apps and Front-end Web Applications and am hiring for both across these geographies - full time and contract developers.
Stack - React/Redux/WebPack/ES7 and objectiveC/Swift/ReactNative for iOS
If you are interested, email me with location preference, nature of employment (contract/employment), technology(iOS/Front-end).
Enterprise is, well, enterprise. Fortunately, Client Side Dev is un-encumbered by the much of the baggage of these and we have been able to create an oasis of awesomeness in this space.
The work in Enterprise is also not as much as there would be in a startup and the pay would be better.
Also your argument on free-market ignores, assumes the absence of a regulator. It might hold when no regulator exists. But under the given condition when a limited amount of spectrum, a natural resource is auctioned to a select number of companies and a regulator exists, how possibly can this be un-regulated?
How possibly can you hand over the power to seek rent from these content provides to these bullying telcos. What would the repercussion be to the consumers of these content.
If their motive were genuinely connectivity, as they advertised it, they can still do it. #EqualRating is allowed, so are charitable initiatives such as Free Data to everyone.
But what do they really want? The next billion internet users hooked onto their platform. That's what they paid Whatsapp a whooping $19B for.
I can't presume to know for sure. We'll both see what will they do of their Freebasics program now.
But won't they be just as hooked as in markets where Facebook has already penetrated? Seems like the smart play is just getting people on-line, and getting them onto Facebook the same way they always have.
I don't believe they ever had any intention of getting the poor online. They have so far never released ANY data regarding how many of the users of Free Basics are first time Internet users despite it being one of the top demands of critics of the Free Basics program. Some independent third party analysis suggest that the overwhelming majority of users of Free Basics are existing Internet users, many of them who have no idea they are on Free Basics.
Reliance (the telco that Facebook has partnered with) doesn't advertise the Free Basics program as "access for the poor" but as "Free Facebook" and doesn't even mention the additional websites available for free on Free Basics.
My guess is that with Free Basics rolled out in 36 countries without any issues, Facebook never expected any opposition.
The "many of whom have no idea they are on free basics" part is a little weird to me. Are these "users" like my father, who technically has internet access but doesn't use it?
Aside from that, I don't think Facebook needs to find "new" internet users to be providing access to the needy. If the users' previous access was the internet equivalent of a polluted river 15 miles away, building a clean well right in the village is still a benefit, even if they're only allowing livestock with an odd number of toes to be watered, which everyone admits is kind of weird.
A friend of mine was on Free Basics. She found out only when she tried to navigate to a video outside of Facebook from a link that she clicked on Facebook and was prompted to purchase a data plan.
Probably the most progressive regulation among anywhere in the world.
Enforcement of these #NetNeutrality principles is the literal granting of the Liberties and Equalities of opportunities, granted to individuals and as such this is a landmark order that will have far reaching repercussions.
Worth noting how this played out. A bunch of folks on the internet, organised themselves and campaigned to stop a $300B market cap corporation and a bunch of telecoms with strong lobbying capabilities. Who would have thought they would win? The situation is worth a Harvard case study or a Nate Silver book.
The future of influencing policy making is right here; and you ain't seen anything yet! Save The Internet team clearly seems to understand the virality of social networks better than Facebook does!
While the David's won this round, it was against an opponent (or group of) which made several tactical errors.
We need to build a more lasting institution to prepare in advance for future papers, have lists of people it can reach out to, and manage the hidden minutiae required to combat these issues.
Because Next time it may not be Facebook, it may be the GoI itself, or reliance.
> We need to build a more lasting institution to prepare in advance for future papers, have lists of people it can reach out to, and manage the hidden minutiae required to combat these issues.
Even in the US we see people finally getting tired of the candidates pushed by Big Money, and many appear to have woken up and reject the candidates pushed by Big Money by default - like they won't even give them a second look.
I think this trend will only grow in the future, and I hope it grows enough and it gathers enough political will to actually drastically limit Big Money influence (that includes limiting corporate lobbying), and to move to a proportional representation system, like what 90 other countries in the world have.
There's a reason why there are like 40% Independents in the US - they are sick and tired of the two existing parties, but those two parties are making it virtually impossible for them to support anyone else. So either they are forced to vote for a Democrat or Republican (because we wouldn't that other monster to win) or they just refuse to vote.
Not to mention that for Congress elections, people virtually have no say in who's elected because of gerrymandering. At least 85% of the seats this year will be safe for those who already own them. So no wonder people think "why vote?" The system is rigged against them by design. This is no democracy.
Can you imagine if they actually had a choice for various other parties that could be guaranteed to be represented in Congress? We'd probably see the Democratic and Republican parties die off pretty quickly (within 10-15 years) if they wouldn't seriously reform themselves.
Lessig actually aggregated many of the extremely important reforms that the US needs to restore its democracy, under his "Citizen Equality Act", but too bad the "Democratic" party never even gave him a chance, and kept changing the rules mid-game to excuse itself for eliminating him.
His plan includes national election day, automatic registration, proportional representation, lobbying reform and citizen funded elections:
I'm an expat and wanted to vote in absentia for the presidential election (which you can do) when it was first legal for me to do so. The procedure isn't too hard, but I decided it was not worth it when I remembered that my official "home state" is a blue state, and the electoral college means that my vote won't matter :|
Fair point and you can look at examples elsewhere in politics and business. TPP is a great example of something that went through iteration after iteration before finally being rammed through.
CISPA and its predecessors were similar. The entities with a vested interest in having these things come to pass have essentially endless coffers to take the long view. All they need is to succeed once whereas we need to succeed in stopping these things each and every time. It is a war of attrition.
How do we focus instead on changes required for a better internet?
The internet was originally designed (imagined?) to route around bad actors, congestion, censorship. If it no longer does that (and there's some truth to say it never has) then we've failed to build in the necessary incentives for that to happen.
This is a ridiculously hard question to answer correctly.
At best I can point out that theres 2 parts to this - the internet infrastructure and the regulatory frameworks.
Till now, we've worked without having to explicitly state the philosophical underpinnings of the web, nor convert that into a law/legal framework.
The slow lumbering leviathans have finally caught up to the nimble minnows of the 2000s. Telecom operators and other incumbents, including governments now know how the web works, and how to make it work for them (to the detriment of the commons).
We can limit the damage of the second, by help build and maintain transparent regulatory frameworks, and in particular - be able to mobilize rebuttals or examples to future papers released by TRAI, or other GoI institutions.
Whats learned here and other countries over the next 5 years, can be used to push for a stronger global framework.
It does not look as simple to me. From what I hear it's other VC funded e-commerce companies who were most vocal against FB. Using their foreign investors' money to to heavy discount and simultaneously blocking smaller companies does not seem anything right/decent or progressive.
VC-funded companies actually wanted differential pricing (which allows FreeBasics). Flipkart, for example, signed up as a partner for Airtel Zero.
Among the 700 startups who signed the petition against differential pricing, there are very few big names in startups - because they stand to gain from differential pricing.
When someone is a progressive, it does not require that everyone actually thinks what they advocate for is actually progress. There are always two sides to every change.
In that light, many people would consider Free Basics to be progress, and as such those people are progressives. Those not wanting change are the conservatives.
Does anybody know of any major open source contributor that lives in SF?
I used to be active in the Python/Django community earlier and am getting involved in the JS-React-Redux community. Not only do most people live outside SF, they live in a remote place that you wouldn't have heard about.
Software, good software is creative and creativity needs serendipity. The pressure to meet the next funding round criteria or to get an Uber through the traffic hearing my next track not making eye contact with my uber-pooler isn't the best frame of mind conducive to creativity.
I'm sure a lot of top CEOs and the top guys in select areas have a great social circle - smartest people who they eat/hangout with, which is very good. But there are also a lot of me-toos, for whom just living in SF is the thing they are achieving that feed their egos.
To compare, you need to measure the attributes of the this and the compared entity.
The alternative entity compared in this case is the Existing Financial System that is handled by the Fed, Wall Street and the Bankers.
Now, there are innumerable number of comparisons and metrics that have already done this job for their preferred metrics and statistics. They all unequivocally side on the side of Bitcoin. (one example: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/)
You are free to ignore these comparisons; but you have to compare and contrast that how cryptocurrencies, if ponzi compare to the modern financial system of all it's warts and what is the net effect of Cryptocurrencies and the Financial system as it exists today; rather than simply stating Cryptocurrencies are in and of themselves Ponzi.