Earlier quoted context omitted.
As of 6:05 PM Central time, at least three people have used the phrase " ad hominem " incorrectly. Unless flyt was attempting to discredit Gruber's premise (which I don't think is the case), the argument is not ad hominem .
It's a popular phrase around here. It seems like people can barely contain the urge to play the "ad hominem" card. It's regurgitated all the time on HN. Same with: -"Straw man" -"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" -"A bad workman blames his tools" (this one is on the rise) I'm sure there are many others I'm missing. Even HN has memes.
At least now we know why Color really got that funding
91–100 of 164 posts
Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding
#92Yeah there sure is nothing there that 'marketers' could use right?
Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding
#93How long before Color becomes Chat Roulette? What protections are children afforded where the content is not "personally identifiable?" And how long after that before Apple drops Color from their App Store?
Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding
#94Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
As of 6:05 PM Central time, at least three people have used the phrase " ad hominem " incorrectly. Unless flyt was attempting to discredit Gruber's premise (which I don't think is the case), the argument is not ad hominem .
It all depends. Sometimes these attacks on the character or reputation of the argument are indirect ad hominem arguments. Consider a fictitious debate between a Christian and a Muslim politician about whether or not to strip Americans of even more civil liberties. The Christian candidate listens to the Muslim candidate make a point, then says loudly and clearly, "Folks, he's a Muslim!" He doesn't say "And therefore h…
Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding
#96I remember attending a Startup School talk wherein Max Levchin explained that Slide wasn't a "pimp my MySpace" company, but rather a data mining company using MySpace widgets as the trojan horse. So, Nguyen isn't the first serial entrepreneur to receive loads of funding based on his reputation and attempt to exploit the trend du jour to mine data from the masses. We all saw how well that worked out for Slide. My gues…
I don't think many people understand how advertisers eat this stuff up. When they start throwing money around again (probably soon), you bet the big guys (like Color?) will repeat the benefits.
Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding
#97Seriously, I think people are seriously overthinking the photo sharing aspect. That's just the first thing they could think of that seemed like it would have mass appeal, but I imagine the company has little to no interest in private photos or in tracking individual users.
Here's how I see the possible future applications. You go somewhere and use your phone en route. Your phone knows approximately where you are and have been recently with a fair degree of detail. Rather than uploading that information to a server and scaring people away from using it, it listens to a stream of numbers from a server, which represent various different location and/or environmental criteria. The phone matches these with what it knows about itself based on where you've taken it, as if it were playing bingo. Every so often it gets a good match, and then uses that as a hash to look up a particular commercial message - one that has a high probability of being relevant to the owner of the phone based on where they are, where they're going, or where they have an established trail.
So you're traveling up the escalator in a shopping mall, when suddenly your phone shrugs (tm). What is it? That obscure thing you like and searched for last week is in a store 2 minutes walk away. Hardly anyone buys those, so if you go there in the next hour they'll give you 20% off; otherwise it goes back to the wholesaler.
Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding
#98I remember attending a Startup School talk wherein Max Levchin explained that Slide wasn't a "pimp my MySpace" company, but rather a data mining company using MySpace widgets as the trojan horse. So, Nguyen isn't the first serial entrepreneur to receive loads of funding based on his reputation and attempt to exploit the trend du jour to mine data from the masses. We all saw how well that worked out for Slide. My gues…
Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding
#99I remember attending a Startup School talk wherein Max Levchin explained that Slide wasn't a "pimp my MySpace" company, but rather a data mining company using MySpace widgets as the trojan horse. So, Nguyen isn't the first serial entrepreneur to receive loads of funding based on his reputation and attempt to exploit the trend du jour to mine data from the masses. We all saw how well that worked out for Slide. My gues…
Data mining at Slide was top tier but there was an unfortunate mis-timing with the economy tanking (read: advertisers had no money) ... and hence the eventual shift towards virtual goods. I don't think many people understand how advertisers eat this stuff up. When they start throwing money around again (probably soon), you bet the big guys (like Color?) will repeat the benefits.
Re: At least now we know why Color really got that funding
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
As of 6:05 PM Central time, at least three people have used the phrase " ad hominem " incorrectly. Unless flyt was attempting to discredit Gruber's premise (which I don't think is the case), the argument is not ad hominem .
You are correct but it is still sad to see that this irrelevant attack is so popular. How is this comment interesting? It’s not about what Gruber is discussing, it just attacks and doesn’t even provide evidence for its assumption. Such comments are not uncommon and I hate them with a passion. A snide, short remark, picking up a popular sentiment without any attempt of providing evidence for the same (“The New York Ti…