surfaceTensi0n's comments

surfaceTensi0n | 9 years ago | on: The Gig Economy’s False Promise

Sometimes you have to take a bum deal, even if you know you're being exploited. This article isn't about telling Uber drivers that they're being exploited (the article references a number of cases where the drivers have sued Uber over it).

surfaceTensi0n | 9 years ago | on: Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial Intelligence?

>God forbid Trump actually does something bad

Uhm, is this a joke?

How about having an anti-Semite for a chief strategist[0]? Or selecting a woefully unqualified campaign donor to to lead the Department of Education[1]? How are you feeling about transgender rights[2]? (And let's not pretend this is just about bathrooms -- if you can't use the bathroom in public, you can't go out in public.) Maybe you care about sexual assault[3]?

[0] - http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-campaign... [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/... [2] - http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/02/23/516837258/5-questi... [3] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-havin...

surfaceTensi0n | 9 years ago | on: Google Home

Doesn't sonos already have integration with spotify? Or is that only available if you're paying for spotify?

surfaceTensi0n | 10 years ago | on: Smoke and Fumes: How the oil industry influenced the debate on climate change

I don't think your assertions are correct. This article[0] is a bit old (2015), but it puts the number of SUVs on the road at 35%. There absolutely are things you can do, though obviously you, personally, aren't going to solve the problem. For example, skipping meat one day a week can have pretty substantial affects on emissions[1]. Or you can get involved with a group that is organizing around climate change.

[0] - http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2016/01/usa-suv-crossover-marke... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock's_Long_Shadow

surfaceTensi0n | 10 years ago | on: Chatbots – Igniting Division of Labour in AI

That's interesting. I guess I just assumed the user would have to add the bots. Otherwise how would they know what the meta-bot is capable of doing? Also, discovery of bots, especially ones that aren't "mainstream" (I'm thinking less utilitarian and more art/fun, here) or part of specific bot networks/marketplaces, would be harder. Allowing users to at least also add their own seems like it would be a useful feature.

surfaceTensi0n | 10 years ago | on: Medium and Twitter founder: ‘We put junk food in front of them and they eat it’

Even before you get to burnout you get saturation where more advertising yields lower returns. There is a whole industry around advertising analytics and helping advertisers figure out how to allocate their budgets for maximum penetration without wasting money on saturated audiences.

If you're interested in some advertising theory, give Media Planning: A Practical Guide by Jim Surmanek[0] a shot. It's short and pretty accessible.

[0] - http://amzn.to/1Q7mGVe

surfaceTensi0n | 10 years ago | on: Chatbots – Igniting Division of Labour in AI

I think you may be overthinking 3 a bit. You only need to use the new bot enough to get enough info for the normal ranking method to work. Some simple solutions:

1. When a new bot is added, always use that bot first. This assumes that the user added it intentionally despite already having bots for that function.

2. If bots are ranked too closely, pick one at random.

3. If bots are ranked too closely, ask the user which to use. Have an option for setting that as default. If you have an Android phone this should feel familiar. This is how Android handles different apps that handle the same function (i.e. what app should open when you click the mailto link).

surfaceTensi0n | 10 years ago | on: Medium and Twitter founder: ‘We put junk food in front of them and they eat it’

In advertising there is a concept called effective frequency which is, essentially, how many times someone needs to be exposed to your ad before they make a purchase. This is tied pretty directly to the complexity of your message. The more complex your message, the higher the effective frequency and the more times people need to be exposed to your ad before they buy your product. Hence the tendency towards easily assimilated ideas like you mention.

surfaceTensi0n | 10 years ago | on: Jupyter Notebook Analysis of Salary Data Spreadsheet

Anecdotally this is absolutely something women take into account when evaluating places to work.

The solution isn't to hide the problem but it does mean that the later you try to fix your diversity problems the harder they will be to fix. As for how to actually solve that problem, you might try looking at what others (especially women) have written on the subject already:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/HOWTO_recruit_and_retain_... http://www.hiremorewomenintech.com/

page 1