Seems like a great idea. I would be interested to hear about the indicators used to show that students sometimes didn't bother applying in these cases. It seems intuitive that college students, having to plan in Fall of N for full-time employment or even internships in Summer of N+1, would have been adversely affected by the normal application schedule. Were there a large number of potential founders that raised the alarm about this?
If HBO is hamstrung by lucrative deals, then it stands to think that HBO's own deal making has prevented them from usurping Netflix. To my knowledge, I haven't heard of Netflix having overtly anti-competitive behavior but I'm all ears for examples. It seems as though HBO is capable of competing, but they have to make a risky play and get out from their cable TV bubble to do so, which is no fault of Netflix.
If anything, this shows that the monolithic telecoms that have large stakes in these cable TV brands are facilitating monopolies elsewhere because likely competitors are locked into their current markets.
EDIT: to be clear, HBO's unsuccessful attempt to be level with Netflix in the streaming arena is more "don't want to" and not "can't". I wouldn't call a lack of wanting to be monopolistic. If HBO suddenly turned around and wanted to compete directly with Netflix and got boxed out by Netflix in some way, i.e. Netflix striking deals with Level 3 or similar providers to prevent HBO from getting equal treatment, then there's a strong case for them being labeled a monopoly.
To my knowledge, I haven't heard of Netflix having overtly anti-competitive behavior but I'm all ears for examples.
I’ not aware of any either, but one does not have to engage in anti-competitive behavior to become or be a monopoly.
If anything, this shows that the monolithic telecoms that have large stakes in these cable TV brands are facilitating monopolies elsewhere because likely competitors are locked into their current markets
Yes, that’s right. But like HBO, they are trapped by their business model.
If large stakeholders in Snap also had large stakes in all these media outlets praising the Snap IPO, would you say the same?
It's not really about what everyone else is reporting; it's the fact that no matter what the spin, they should disclose their ties to Snap's success so the reader is fully aware that this piece could come across as a back-scratch type of move on Vox's part.
There was another example in this very article of them writing a glowing defense of Comcast, which they neglected to put a disclaimer on until a large outcry caught up with them. Where are you getting your opinion that they "usually do a good job of disclosing things"?
The Verge very often does, like in "The Worst Company In America"[1], there's a disclaimer. I listen to their podcast and whenever Comcast comes up (and always highly critical of the company) they recite the disclaimer before making fun of them for investing in them.
I think the problem is a lot of people go "I agree with essentially everything this newspaper puts out, thus this is great journalism!" when really good journalism would likely have you disagreeing with it as much as you agree.
I think you oversimplify. Most peopke are more tolerant to bad journalism if it confirms their prejudices. And doing good journalism is harder than doing bad one. Thus it is easy to get away with bad one if you only care about click and/or only care for one ideological niche. But that doesn't mean there's no demand for high quality journalism - it's just harder to do it, so less people bother to. In nonpolitical topics, where prejudices are less strong, there is plenty of quality content. And if we stop supporting crappy content in political topics, it will happen there too.
I was about to say the same thing. For example if you go to someones GitHub profile and they have a public e-mail listed but you then go their repositories, filter by "source" (repos created by them, not forks) and you go to the oldest one they have of that kind, git clone that and then
git shortlog -s -e
You might find that they were using their school e-mail back then for example.
Also if you clone all their repositories and everything else they have contributed to you might find an occasional commit in which they accidentally used for example the e-mail they have at work.
You can just retrieve the Git patch directly from the commit page (add .patch to the URL), which has all the metadata of the commit, including author info.
In their diff example, line 33 on the left and 35 on the right are shown to be unchanged, however the indent isn't the same... Seems like they've hardcoded this example incorrectly unless I'm missing something? Left line 32 is removing a bracket at indent level 2, left line 33 is unchanged bracket at indent level 1, but there's now one less bracket at level 1 in the right side, even though no bracket at level 1 was removed?
We don't show leading/trailing whitespace diffs unless the diff consists only of leading/trailing whitespace changes.
This is sort of what we do when diffing:
* when we need to compare two buffers, we represent them as two arrays of lines
* we then proceed to trim() each line in both arrays
* we then use a greedy optimization where the first N and the last M lines that are equal (post trimming) in both arrays are dropped from further computation
* we then run a LCS algorithm over the remaining lines to find the diffs
It is important to note that the same two arrays of lines can have multiple equal longest common substrings. This method [1] could get some love and could try to recover in some of these cases.
Coin stood by nothing, not even their early backers. I'm genuinely upset they got our money and sold out, making more money. I wish they went up in flames and died out for the horrific user experience I and other backers experienced.
Coin had a raised a decent amount of Venture Capital, so it's likely there were other stakeholders and voices at the table in the decision. It's not uncommon for a VC to demand a board seat when they lead a funding round, and it's also not uncommon for a VC with said board seat to push for a modest exit to cover their downside when things aren't working out.
I'm with you. Not only was I an original backer, but I was also an early backer. I got my Coin 1.0 months after they promised, and it almost never worked anywhere. Coin 2.0 comes out with EVT but no NFC payment, promises to work at more locations, still hardly works. I'm pretty pissed with Coin, and will definitely not buy into any future FitBit products as a result.
I'm glad there's at least one government agency that's competent and technical enough to further our encryption tech. I'm worried the FBI and DOJ will try to spin this DARPA notice into somehow justifying that 'perfect encryption should be a military-only technology'.
