I was in college, and attended a career fair for Amazon back in 2002. I was not in my last year so I really went just for free food. It was quite sparse, and after a while one guy with a friendly smile just walked up to me and said "Hi, I'm Larry". We talked a little bit about my background, about Amazon and opportunities there. I felt like I was a hotshot at the time, and quite frankly didn't. Only after I went back to my dorm and looked him up did I realize who I was talking to.
He was super humble, super nice. I acted like a jerk, thinking I was hot stuff and everybody was there to court me and was there just for free pizza. Despite being infinitely more accomplished than I could ever be, he was nice, engaging and never treated me in kind.
Every so often I think back to that time and kick myself at the lost opportunity to have a conversation with one of the legends of Silicon Valley.
Does anyone know if there is a material difference between the MAX-8 and the MAX-9? All the banning seems to be specifically for the MAX-8, but should they consider banning all MAX series aircraft? I realize the crashes themselves were MAX-8, but the difference between them seems not significant?
The 737-700, -800 and -900ER, the most widespread versions of the previous 737NG,[10] are replaced by the 737 MAX 7, MAX 8 and MAX 9, respectively[61] (FAA type certificate: 737-7, -8, and -9[8]). The 737 MAX 8 entered service in May 2017,[2] and the MAX 9 entered service in March 2018.[62] The MAX 7 is expected to enter service in January 2019, followed by the MAX 200 later in 2019, and the MAX 10 in 2020.
Given this only seems to be afflicting MAX8 craft in terms of material evidence, my guess is they won’t ground the whole series unless/until another MAX craft goes down.
AFAIK the avionics on both variants are the same. A pilot who is (properly!) trained and type-rated on one should be able to effortlessly use the other.
The only difference, again AFAIK, is the passenger and cargo capacity, length, and the range.
The 737 type rating (training/licence addon required) covers pretty much the entire family of 737s from the 200 to the max.
The avionics are the same but because the planes have substantially different air-frames, the software parameters and possibly some functionality will differ. It's not unreasonable for differences in these flight parameters to be a factor.
Honestly, it goes even further than that. The generally accepted theory in the Lion Air incident is that a system caused MCAS might be one of the major causes of the accident.
Basically, the larger/more powerful/further forward engines on the MAX would cause the airplane to behave differently to other 737 variants in some situations, and MCAS is designed augment pilot input and allow the pilots to fly the planes as they would have flown other 737s (and allows pilots to fly MAXes under the same type ratings as previous 737 models). However, in edge cases (in the case of Lion Air, erroneous sensor input) the airplane might do something totally different from other 737 variants. Evidently Boeing didn't even require pilots to be told about MCAS, because all it (supposedly) does is make a MAX feel like an older 737.
> While I don't disagree, people said the same thing about Amazon.
The difference to me is that Amazon competed aggressively on price and selection. You could get books or items which you just couldn't get in a local Borders. You could also get the same item significantly cheaper than a Borders or Barnes and Noble.
Blue Aprons value lies in the recipe and the convenience of having all the ingredients picked out for you, but charges a significant premium. I would like this as a way to try new recipes or expand my range (e.g. I don't stock ingredients/spices etc at home for Chinese food), but not as my go-to option for daily meals.
It may not be as easy for someone like whole-foods or Safeway to generate recipes, efficiently package/put-together ingredients etc, but I also feel the value addition is much less than someone like Amazon's was: More items and much cheaper.
I don't know why you got downvoted, but you're right. The author seems to claim that Google should know someone searching for collision strategies shouldn't search for bra's or for Michelle Branch on Instagram. Or even suggest that its not possible for one person (male or female) to be interested in both topics.
The post was downvoted (not by me) for its sarcastic tone and for not taking into account that in the OP's real scenario, the queries were being performed by two different people. If Google assumes the same person can't search for two topics like that in one account, obviously they would be making a crude mistake, but Google has preferred data-driven, sociologically agnostic methods long enough that it's common knowledge on HN. For example, the same behavioral research they're doing with their captcha and behavioral-based authentication should help them lock on to different rates of typing, clicking, etc that two people on the same account might display.
> for not taking into account that in the OP's real scenario, the queries were being performed by two different people
gberger's comment was pointing out that the original comment did not take into account that these particular queries could have been performed by the same people.
That said, it could have been phrased more productively.
I definitely came away from Tinco's original comment with the icky feeling that a) Tinco's a little too thrilled with how super interesting and intellectual he is, and b) Tinco doesn't have much respect for his girlfriend's interests, and c) Tinco takes it for granted that Google should know that a single person couldn't possibly be interested in the union of those interests, probably because it should know that all the physics and programming and philosophy stuff is "boy stuff" and the rest is "girl stuff".
gberger seems to be reacting (in a slightly less than constructive way) to that same uncomfortable sense.
I thought tinco was saying that Google should know that two parallel threads of research going on at once from separate devices implied that at least two separate people were using the same account.
I read it as a literal example - tinco saw those exact examples.
But they aren't in the example, and Google is understanding their specific situation wrongly/not in an optimal way. Maybe that's not possible to do, maybe the way they are doing it right now is the best overall, but it is not the best interpretation of the specific situation. Which is all I get from the original comment: "Here is something that they could understand better".
Pointing out that implementing this precisely would be difficult because you can't rely on interest subsets as an indicator would have been a fine response. Immediately accusing the poster of being sexist because it obviously is impossible to do is not, unless you have hard data to support that there is no way to tell the difference.
(I'd assume "disjunct" queries from different devices at the same time very often are different people, or at least worth treating as different sessions. But maybe people use multiple devices at the same time more often than I think?)
That's incorrect. The GP comment (tinco) is simply relaying a story that says that Google should know that he and his significant other have disjoint interests and query patterns (though they share devices and location). It's an anecdotal story. Someone else could have said that they like things in the join of the two interest sets and dislike something else. Tinco's story helps us learn more about the "entangled session" problem - a known area of research in Google (per the constructive response from nostradamons). Claims aren't made about how to go about doing that (people searching for X will never search for Y), just that Google should have a way of addressing Tinco's specific case.
Yes, because it was a facile potshot aimed at a better comment that discounted both the actual content and the nature of the problem; not even a daring one at that, this isn't the National Review.
> Is this your own set of insecurities being projected on others? I never got that sense in SV...
I am not the OP, but I share his/her views. To the above point, maybe?
I used to perceive NY/Wall-Street as all about image, and SF/tech-scene to be much more down-to-earth and friendly. I don't find that anymore. Taking Caltrain, I see people wearing Google/FB/Twitter/XXX t-shirts, sweatshirts, jackets, bags etc. Company badges are displayed prominently, and its easy to recognize companies from the badge. YC t-shirts, sweatshirts are also common. If not company t-shirts, then I see tons of MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Harvard t-shirts, sweatshirts etc. I rarely saw any company or university branded apparel in NYC.
The prominence of these in SV seems like a way to showcase an elite status.
I think you're reading into this based on how the rest of the world operates. Most techies in Silicon Valley wear company schwag because it's free. My wardrobe consists of (or has consisted of, my wife made me throw a bunch of the older stuff out) T-shirts from Amherst, Brandeis, and Olin; a TellApart T-shirt; a Medallia T-shirt; a Microsoft T-shirt; a Foliage Software Systems T-shirt; at least 6 Google T-shirts; 2 Google hoodies; and then a bunch of unbranded stuff I got as gifts. I don't think I've ever bought a T-shirt with my own money.
Same in LA. A lot of crew t-shirts and other stuff given out at the end of production. And the recently-graduated college students? College t-shirts (sometimes sweatshirts in our 'winter').
I used to go to the bay all the time and I would always wear Foursquare (snowboarding brand) hoodies. This was at a time when Foursquare the SV startup was really popular. People would always stare and ask if I worked there. Eventually I just started telling them I was a co-founder.
Look, imagine two tungsten balls, 4" in diameter each, at night. One is painted matte black and the other is heated to 2500 degrees Celsius. Which one is more visible? These are two absolutely equal balls and one constitutes exactly 50% of the population :-)
I take Caltrain regularly (I live on Peninsula and work in SF FiDi) and I see these people, but nothing out of ordinary. There're, I believe, 8000 working in FB Menlo Park office. That's a lot of people. And the industry is heated up, so these people are more visible because the temperature is higher. So what, it happened before (2001) and will happen again :-)
Or maybe they just don't care to buy sweatshirts, jackets, bags, when they get them for free from their company? Who cares what people wear on CalTrain??!?
To be fair, he's wrong and you're wrong. It's not about what he wants to see or not see. He says homelessness is bad because it affects him and his lifestyle. To couch this problem in such a narcissistic way leads to solutions like Super Bowl city (a solution he mentions and actively endorses). It leads to solutions to just resolve the rich lifestyles, and not actually help the homeless. His letter doesn't highlight the problem (like so many commenters here are saying), but just highlights the impact it has to his lifestyle.
I loved Click and Clack. Their laughter and enthusiasm was always infectious. No matter how down I was, listening to Car Talk always lifted me up.
Though they were exceedingly smart and good at what they do, their self-deprecating attitude humanized them, and really instilled the lesson of humility.
Well put. Their good natured self deprecation was hilarious but also so sweet. You really felt the bond they had between each other, with their audience, and their love of the show.
This is the one thing I really noticed. After listening to some of the morning shows, where one person is always getting teased and used as a doormat for everybody's jokes.
You could tell these two truly had a special friendship and it clearly came through in how they interacted with each other. There were no malicious stabs or cheap shots, it was all lighthearted fun and jesting.
100% seconded. Tom was truly one of a kind - the infectiousness of their personalities reminded me, in an odd way, of Robin Williams. Tom, Ray, and Robin - they a made the world a better place by being reliably themselves, institutions of my growing up, and hilarious. My deepest condolences to Ray on what must be a terribly sad day for him.
> Now, white well educated people with well-padded resumes will probably have easier access to venture capital, but that brings me to my next point.
Isn't this really the key here? I agree with your other arguments about ultimately needing to have fluid intelligence etc. But assuming two people (one white, one black) have the same amount of intelligence, smarts etc, but one raises $10 million from Sequoia and the other doesn't.
That pretty much makes the difference between succeeding and failing.
There are ideas which are so world-changing or brilliant that the market and VC's just can't ignore their eventual prominence (Google maybe?). There are other ideas which need lots of capital and talent injection in order to nurture them to the point where they are big.
Of course! But in the startup world you get to pick your market, your product, your idea -- everything. If you don't have access to capital, don't pick an idea that requires a large capital injection before product/market fit because that's where you have the biggest advantage. You get to pick your battlefield here, and if you're smart you'll pick one where you have the advantage.
Once you get to product/market fit, you'll get capital no matter who you are or where you come from. The market pressure is too strong for people not to invest.
The middle group as mentioned is a mix of linebackers, tight-ends and also running backs.
> That middle ground is probably not best suited for any role
Modern NFL is very specialized. You have linebackers of various sizes who are used in situational conditions (passing vs running downs), and also vary in size/height based on the defensive scheme. e.g. A linebacker in a Cover-2 based defense is probably lighter/faster vs a larger linebacker used in a 3-4 defense.
There was also a hidden camera operation which interviewed quite a few of the perpetrators who were leaders of VHP and Bajrang Dal (A few of the right-wing Hindu organizations). A bunch of them claim Modi's explicit approval for the riots.
The comments and the interviews are disturbing to say the least.
He was super humble, super nice. I acted like a jerk, thinking I was hot stuff and everybody was there to court me and was there just for free pizza. Despite being infinitely more accomplished than I could ever be, he was nice, engaging and never treated me in kind.
Every so often I think back to that time and kick myself at the lost opportunity to have a conversation with one of the legends of Silicon Valley.
Thank you Larry.