This view is over-simplistic. Many—perhaps most—products are designed to serve more than one kind of user.
Obvious example: building an e-commerce platform. The merchant is a kind of user. The customer is a different kind of user on that same platform. Yes, they're humans, but they're not doing the same thing.
Any B2B or B2C type product will have at least two very distinct roles like that. And in those cases, arguing that everyone is just a person as a sort of moral position is destructively vague. It's more difficult to serve someone's needs if you can't start to narrow down what they're trying to accomplish.
While I totally agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't conflate personhood identically with their role in a product, solving useful problems does require that you de-scope and discretize the interactions a bit.
Congrats to the team. Though in the inevitable acquisition, I wish GitHub/Microsoft had been the acquirer: there are a lot of natural fits between that ecosystem and Keybase's model, and a reasonable history of successful acquisition.
Hopefully Zoom avoids gutting Keybase. I found it really useful for bootstrapping credentials when onboarding remote team members and contractors. Way easier to manage than GPG: it was fairly painless even for non-technical people.
Fingers crossed. I wonder what the infrastructure overhead cost is?
At some level I agree with your sentiment about shibboleth-style filtering. Not having seen these specific "tests" though, I can charitably imagine these being relevant to fault-tolerance/managed intricacy. Things like, "This code failed. How did it get to that state?" or "X can be interrupted at any time. Implement Y such that it atomically…" are examples of coding challenges that _are_ relevant to being fluent in embedded software development. I really doubt they're asking "implement quicksort"-type questions.
I care a bit. It's misleading by the standards of anyone who's used to reading graphs. Wikipedia is an organization I care about and trust and it sucks to skim a graph and realize that the axis was changed to mean something that the shape didn't convey. The entire value of graphs is using shapes to convey meaning.
That's true but still doesn't map here. Or at least, to my interpretation of it.
Stock-picking is specifically referring to where you should allocate a given amount if you are investing. There's obviously more to stocks than simply picking them, but as for picking specifically, there's no analog in poker because you don't divide your bet that way. (Aside from raising on a bluff, but that's stretching it).
Whether, when, and how much you should invest is a separate strategy that's related to your confidence and expected return of the picking strategy—but not the same thing.
Just like whether and when you agree to a game of chess vs tic-tac-toe might depend on your confidence in your skills; but that decision is _not_ relevant to chess strategy, which assumes you're already playing the game.
Yes, because mapping has more than one meaning, e.g. an operation that associates each element of a given set (the domain) with one or more elements of a second set (the range).
It's still just one definition: A paper map relates a point on a the piece of paper to a point in some other space (topography, subway stops, interstate routes, etc). And if you relax the "carto" part of "cartography" (e.g. someone working on OSM or Google Maps is still doing cartography), then I think cartography as "the practice of constructing maps" is still an unambiguous and non-overloaded meaning, which applies to mapping infrastructure just as well.
> There's a massive rift between "sun makes tree grow, preventing other trees from getting the light" and "I'm trying to sell my wares by expressing concepts of value, numbers, and desire".
Like a tree bearing bright red, juicy-looking fruits filled with sugar and vitamins?
Arguably, you could say that it is driven by evolutionary pressure. Could you convince me that the term "evolutionary pressure" is a form of desire? I don't know. Does desire require consciousness? Are trees conscious?
Yes — won once, and died another time on the Plane of Fire. (I meant to zap down, not at myself! Damn. Learned to think before acting. NetHack is not as real-time as it feels when you're in a sticky situation.)
