"The Mom Test" by Rob Fitzpatrick will teach you how to figure out what your customers really want, because it is almost certainly not what they are asking for.
"How to Make Sense of Any Mess" by Abby Covert. How to organize and present information.
"To Sell is Human" by Dan Pink. This is how you should look at sales and marketing.
Assuming you are going to be building software:
"Seductive Interaction Design" by Stephen P. Anderson.
"Planning Extreme Programming" and "Extreme Programming Explained" are must-reads for working with software teams.
I've worn both product and engineer hats on my path to being a sort of rentable CTO, and am always happy to help out people that are getting started as a PM -- email is in the profile.
Includes books and articles. Been very helpful so far.
"Design for How People Learn" by Julie Dirksen: instructional design, but any product will involve a bunch of teaching.
Will return with more if I remember any.
It also performed quite well for its speed with most instructions completing in 1-3 cycles, many CPUs of higher clock rates weren't as efficient as the 6502.
I do work in the natural language and item matching areas and in those cases I do what I call "preliminary evaluation" by working a small number of cases (say 10-20) in depth and putting together some story about what kind of outputs would be expected, what the actual requirements are, and what a decision process is going to have to take into account. You've got to put together a plausible story that the decision process exists.
For your case I would say the dog example is more feasible than the health care one. The caveat is what the negatives are like for the dog: are we looking at photos that have a lot of yellow and red? Are we looking at photos of dogs, etc? As for health care, prediction just adds to the health care boondoggle unless you can make the case of making a difference in outcomes and cost as opposed to just getting a better score at Kaggle.
In the case of text examples I'd say you want 10,000 examples of items in the class and at least that many out of it if you are doing a problem that bag-of-words is able to do to get results that you'd really be proud of. You might get that down to as little as 1,000 if some dimensional reduction is in use.
The center of my approach, when precision matters, is case-based reasoning, where you really find that there is one simple strategy that works say, 70% of time, and then a patch that gets you to 80% and then you keep adding exceptional cases to work up the asymtope. In a lot of cases like that you can establish a proof as to a lower bound of how accurate the results are and work up to handling more and more cases.
A core issue though is evaluating what matters, which is why I say follow the money. There is no better way to destroy evaluators than making them split hairs that don't matter.
Think of it this way: machine learning is all about grabbing features from what we can normally say "duh its right there that's what is causing it." but in an automated manner. So how do we make the rules for it?
We need many, MANY, examples. If you can provide CONCRETE examples for each occurrence, then you MAY have a chance at giving it some sort of predictive capability.
The more important issue is HOW you plan to extract these features, the things that make you go "duh, that's whats causing it." So focus on this last part, and the rest will come easier.
Good luck, but I think you will do fine.
On the nitpick side, I don't have enough context to know what this means in real terms: "Daily orders per day increased by over 100 for previously inactive users."
Such a tool might end up doing a disservice. People arguably already don't think enough about the stuff that's presented to them as facts. I'm not sure outsourcing critical thinking to machines would really help in that respect.
As for the technical aspects, checking multiple sources helps little with regards to the veracity of an article. Many news sites just regurgitate news from other sources or remix previous articles.
 - http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/It-...
 - https://github.com/anantdgoel/HackPrincetonF16
 - https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/fib/ofpheinlpjdffp...
If interested, I can help with the back-end. Fullish-er stack person with a few things living in production today (one of which does 500k uniques/month). Ruby/Rails is my go-to. Email is in profile.
From the site..."A demonstration of what can be accomplished through CSS-based design. Select any style sheet from the list to load it into this page."
My personal favorite is http://www.csszengarden.com/219/. It's busy, but I love the effects and it is visually stunning.
Lately, I've been using Flask on the back-end, and React on the front-end.
You get lots of great stuff out of the box. Perfect for me to get up and running quickly for simple/side projects.
Writing Ruby feels nice and is always a welcome change of pace from a lot of the heavy JS stuff I am doing on frontend atm.
If I need templates I'll add "HTML:Template", for email I'll add "Mail::Sendmail", et cetera, to my perl cgi script.
As a front-end developer I just can't warrant the time setting up a backend, setting up a database, defining routes, handling authentication and the other nonsense that seemingly takes a solid day to get working.
Firebase to me is the best choice for simple projects, I don't use anything else anymore.
When I'm prototyping, my data model is stored procs that return json structures to the templates. I use SQLAlchemy core to connect to the db and execute the procs.
A prototype like this is super fast to get running, it gives you a really clean app structure that you can hand off to pretty much anyone and have them work on features, if you're lucky enough to have a team. If not, it's pretty easy to keep it all in your head at once.
As things grow, you can replace components as you need to.
You start off rendering JSON anyway, so if you need a more advanced interface up front, you can use React or Angular or Ember to hook into the data model. Whatever you want, really.
If things get more complex on the backend first and you need more structure there, you can refactor the SQL (because it was probably really gross the first time you wrote those "dump everything" procs). If you end up with a really complicated data model, you may have to eat the performance hit and switch to Alchemy proper for maintainability. Either way, the choice is yours.
Sometimes the simple app is the one you need, and the biggest challenge is scaling quickly. That's easy too because the database handles transactions inside the procs. Run one instance of the app per core on your server and put them all behind nginx and repeat on as many machines as you need to cover your traffic needs behind HAProxy. Now you're maximizing multi-core performance per machine without having to write async/await code.
It's probably not for everyone, but I find it gives me an enormous amount of flexibility, scales well in every sense of the word, allows the app to develop organically, and has very few drawbacks.
The ORM is really usable and simple CRUD apps are pretty easy after you've used it a few times. Django Admin for free is nice too.
You take an arbitrary Ring-compatbile HTTP server, write a handler, and glue together whatever you need to.And you most likely don't need a routing library, you can just use an array-map for that. When it is time to deploy, you create a jar that contains your whole project and upload it to AWS.
Rollback is easy, too, as you don't overwrite your previous version. Funny enough, it means you can treat versions as immutable values of your application over time. I use yyyymmdd for versioning in most projects, that works great with this approach.
There are many discussions on virtues of Clojure's dynamic development environment, so I'll skip that.
I am a sysadmin.I like Perl and its plethora of modules.With Mojolicious, I can write a simple web app/prototype within the hour.
It's now cross-platform and there's an Azure free tier.
Of course, other people can get similar productivity within their own most familiar stacks :) (someone mentioned an hour for a similar setup with Rails)
Good solid base for quickly developing something quickly.
Going to give crystal a go for my next project though.
Yes I'm not cool :P but when did I care about being cool...
There is a woodworking podcast I really like that is 3 woodworkers just chatting with each other about various topics and responding to questions. They all have different perspectives and skills and they often disagree about things, but by listening I get a good idea of the breadth of opinions and viewpoints.
IMO too many startup discussions are very narrow and don't talk about the large breadth of viewpoints that are out there in all sorts of topics. This is especially true if the people doing most of the talking are either VCs or successful founders and essentially are unchallenged by opposing viewpoints.
For instance, I just started using LogDNA and was really impressed by the product, looked up the team and discovered it's Lee Liu's third(?) company. Alex Maccaw has had an influence on my career from his JS work and Stripe product, then Sourcing.io and now Clearbit. Max Krohn: SparkNotes, OkCupid, now Keybase, I still think Max's async solutions are some of the best in the business.
Writing code while growing a team and communicating with the other founders to build a product requires a smart balance. The technical choices made by these founders tend to be very efficient and easy to communicate to others. I would love to hear more from any of these founders (Thanks all for your work!), and I'm sure YC knows of more such founders I haven't yet discovered.
* Paul Graham, haven't heard from him lately
* Pieter Thiel (ideally a long interview about Trump, Palantir, seastanding, Libertarianism)
* Sam Altman (sneak peek into the upcoming MOOC, things he's working on, OpenAI)
* OpenAI team
* Failed startups: Homejoy to begin with
Please ask HN for questions, before going to interview people. Ask deep and difficult questions, and avoid boring, generic questions.
Generic advice is abundant and far less helpful. Individual founders could do episodes as well, but it's hard to be genuine and talk about the hard stuff when your startup's identity is affected - especially in front of customers and investors.
By focusing on a problem - the contributing founders can chose to get credit or stay anonymous with their answers. You could also do an episode on just cool "Tell us about a time when you've hacked a non-computer system." answers and it would be a great listen.
Antonio Garca Martnez, author of Chaos Monkeys.
Bobby Goodlatte on Facebook's news feed algorithm and the election.
Peter Thiel on Trump and what's next, etc.
Justin Edmond on early Pinterest and diversity in Silicon Valley.
Dann Petty on Epicurrence and design culture in Silicon Valley.
Kim-Mai Culter on Initialized Capital and housing in the Bay Area.
I get it, this is VC content marketing after all, you need people to believe that applying to YC, taking funding and going the VC route is the smart move for their company. However, if you can't find a way to break the monotony I can't imagine lots of people sticking with it.
General ideas:- If you want to tell stories, I like the idea that someone else mentioned, going multi-episode deep with a single company.
- If you want to be useful, things like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHzvmyMJEK4 are super valuable. YC would be nice, but I was going to start a company regardless. Learning what YC could or would do for me if I got in isn't valuable. Learning stuff that I can and probably should do with or without YC is super useful (which engenders me to like your brand).
- Have founders talk about tactics which helped them or consider a tactical episode once every N weeks? Amongst startup podcasts there's a lot of theory (platitudes?), "build something people want", "work harder", "software is eating the world" which is good and has it's place but there's a glut of it in the podcast/startup world. While chatting with YC partners after Startup School this year, the tactical advice was the stuff that stuck with me. I heard multiple tactical ideas repeated several times, things like "Get a phone number if possible, it's much better than email. Early founders under estimate phone calls." or "If you do cold email, you need to be sending 100 emails a day." and each time it was said, the group of people listening was surprised.
- 1:1, Qasar gives some of the most brutal but realistic responses to business ideas and whether or not they can be scaled quickly. I think he'd be a fun guest.
Maybe post a thread on HN asking for volunteers who post a description of their startup and you do live office hours with the highest voted startup each week.
On the question of who it would be cool to hear from, I'd love to hear from YC alums talking about their YC experience, not just a sentence about it but going into detail about mistakes they made and things that helped.
It'd also be cool to see some more technology focused interviews, specifically focusing on how technical founders or CTOs built their original prototypes or MVPs and the technical decisions made on the path to get the startup where it is today, although I understand that being completely out of scope for a business focused podcast.
As a black man I'd like to hear from black founders, and other founders that might encounter bias (women, international founders, etc.) about unique challenges they've dealt with, especially when it comes to raising money.
The interviews on the podcast have been interesting and inspiring, but they tend to lack useful actionable information beyond the same generic advice you can get anywhere (talk to users, focus on growth, etc.) I'd like to see more actionable problem solving advice and less about how great a particular startup is or how lucky a particular group of founders was.
Not another tech podcast with hosts who sound bored.
Not another tech podcast that can't be arsed to put in the work to get good sound quality.
Not another tech podcast where each episode interviews yet another person about 'what they're working on' with no larger story.
And please if you have ads, dear god don't fall down the hole of writing or reading ad copy that makes it sound like you're making a personal endorsement out of the goodness of your own heart.
Travis Kalanick -- Scour
Drew Houston -- Accolade
Justin Kan & Emmett Shear -- Kiko
Jack Dorsey -- Uber Imitator in the early 2000s
Sean Parker -- Napster
Parker Conrad -- SigFig
Ben Silbermann -- Audiobeta
1) Mike Bloomberg: Talk about founding and tech development of Bloomberg Professional Service (don't talk about politics at all)
2) Judy Faulkner: Founder and CEO of EPIC systems, a large privately held Hospital EHR vendor (Epic is one of the largest and most insular tech companies in the world)
3) Jack Ma: Founder of Alibaba
4) Pierre Omidyar: Founder Ebay
5) Bill Gates and/or Steve Ballmer
6) Mark Cuban
More traditional Silicon Valley:
1) Larry Ellison: CEO of Oracle
2) Marc Benioff: CEO/Founder Salesforce
3) Paul Buccheit: Talk about gmail and early Google R&D product only
4) Matt Cutts: Get him to tell us how SEO really works
5) Scott Cook: Founder Intuit
6) Jeff Bezos: Founder/CEO Amazon
7) Tony Fadell: iPod Designer & CEO of Nest
I would really like to hear from founders that are still running the business and are still profitable.
Something like how posts on indiehackers.com but with more detail would be interesting.
I care less about who the specific guests are and more about specific topics. Origin stories are really fun to hear, but I don't get a lot of practical value out of listening to them.
I imagine a lot of the podcast audience is those that have been or would be rejected from YC at this point in their journey so there might be more lessons there for us than from the outliers that were accepted to YC.
This is niche i know but it would be good because many people here like me will find it more relatable than hearing people who have celebrity like status.
A couple examples of excellent podcasts of this variety are the Ezra Klein Show  and Sam Harris's Waking Up .
 http://www.vox.com/ezra-klein-show-podcast https://www.samharris.org/podcast
When would you expect to start airing?
I wouldn't want this to be every episode, but a themed episode on a specific 'hot' industry could be neat, i.e. interviewing founders of three companies in related fields. e.g. drones, crypto-currencies, bio, etc...
Often there's so many promising directions in a new industry that existing founders don't have time to explore all the opportunities.
YC should encourage them to share these avenues of potential in a discussion format... because who knows, maybe someone listening could grab an idea and run with it (and be in the next batch.)
I love podcasts, and as a matter of fact host one myself called Veni Vidi VC. Despite the shameless plug, I would love to hear from successful YC founders who have had exits.
The entire process is fascinating to me, including:- building a company- raising funds, and - making it ready to be absorbed as part of a corporation or better yet, becoming a public company
Infact, all founders from every startup in this list is interesting to me - https://mattermark.com/mattermark-startup-index-top-10-y-com....
IMHO Justin Kan already demonstrated what works - office hours !
Office hours are YC's killer feature ..and also the reason why Startup School's format also follows office hours. I don't think YC should do a Techcrunchy podcast.
If anything - do a weekly Q&A with someone famous where users are able to submit questions.
TL;DR - bring the YC format to the podcast.
I really liked AMA from YC partners here on hacker news. They answered a few questions about how one should things about early stage starting up. I would like to see more of such things.
I'd actually like you to tell me who is interesting. I'd like to hear fun/interesting stories from YC companies. Perhaps there are great stories of companies that flamed out or failed to build a product and therefore we have never heard of them. I want to hear about those people just as much as I want to hear about Dropbox/Airbnb/Stripe et al.
Also enjoyed the ones where they talk about how they got their first users. In many episodes the conversation I felt skipped this or spent too little time on it.
-Jason Cohen CEO of WPEngine
-Gail Goodman, former CEO of Constant Contact
-Jason Lemkin of Saastr
-Author of TensorFlow (apparently email@example.com)
-David Skok of Matrix Partners
Vinay Gupta - hexayurt dude / blockchain evangelizer now trying to start an accelerator
Mariana mazzucato - economist, author of rethinking capitalism
Editas Medicine (http://www.editasmedicine.com/).
Or people from similar companies. Gene editing startups, essentially.
* I can scan quickly.
* I can search for things.
* It's easier for me to read things than listen. I don't drive much, so don't have dead time when I can only listen.
I enjoyed 90% of the guests and learned a ton. I never felt a retooling was needed.
Maybe @aaron needed more hosts, but he did a fine job.
Would love to complain about something, but all I can say from a listener viewpoint is that taking time away to retool wasn't needed imho.
The way you sourced your guests was pretty good, just keep doing that.
Ah well. We may not all be VCs, but it is your business.
Dug Song, Duo Security
Bill Hamilton, TechSmith
Jeff Epstein, Ambassador
Nathan Hughes, Detroit Labs
I know you are asking for technological tool for this, but looks like the problem you are trying to solve is created by technology , so maybe the solution is non tech and getting away from the technology.
Will slow down your mental processor to communication speed, by teaching you to listen to yourself.
I used to do this with books. Very different, rewarding experience.
Oftentimes people speak for the sake of being heard but don't add anything meaningful to the conversation. Then you get the quiet ones who speak very little but when they do, it is meaningful and everyone hears what they say.
I think a lot of us could benefit from learning how to do a little more listening and a little less speaking ;)
To give a more constructive (although nontechnical) answer, make friends with someone like me. (in the "talks too much" sense) Find someone who likes engagement, conversation, etc (hopefully in a domain of shared interest) and associate with them a lot. I've found a decent track record at getting quiet teammates to become more outspoken by engaging them on that level in a friendly environment on a regular basis, because then talking more becomes the norm.
There's even (at least from my perspective) mutual benefit as the same reduction-to-the-mean helps the more talkative party get better at listening/engaging quiet people too.
But now I live and work in New Zealand and smalltalks here is a must. And that is really difficult for me.
My advice: just talk. People like to talk random meaningless things. Talk to your colleagues about the weather, about plans for weekends, about their current tasks, ask if they are ok, ask about their car/bike/cat/dog, invite for a coffee etc.
And don't be afraid to repeat yourself. Literally, they ask the same things everyday.
Then, see if you can engage people at a bar, first the bartender and then a random barmate. This is the test for whether you have storytelling, presentation, emoting, expression, vocabulary, register, eye contact, body language, and the other elements of communication in sync.
After you've successfully tried it on yourself package it as a simple prototype app. Add some gamification and put it on Kickstarter.
UberConference shows you the minutes each person spoke in a meeting. May be setup a dummy meeting with yourself, or with a friend who you normally connect well with, and measure the time spoken and consciously try to improve it? It removes the social anxiety part.
Another option is to use an app like Ummo, which measures how many words you speak. May be take a topic, and speak away?
1 - uberconference.com2 - ummoapp.com
Or just decide to go out every day and approach new people. And then just measure the amount of interactions.
Or just decide to have some "social" time every day, and measure consistency, make sure not to skip it.
Even less helpful for you, I recently been able to use Go more frequently, so I have no more long compile times. :p
I remember having to work in Java codebases, and it was an absolute nightmare. Slow was the name of the game at all levels: slow to design anything, slow to write the code required, slow to navigate, slow to compile, slow to start, etc.
What are the nature of the changes you're making? Is it something you can write and debug in another (faster) language, then translate to the main language? If you were able to do it this way, then you wouldn't need as many compilations.
I used to read a book while waiting for compiles when I was in High School.
I have test suites that take 5-20 minutes to run and I do just about everything I can to cache data to bring that time down.
I feel your pain.
(I say that, but I usually look at HN...)
At the moment it's pluralsight.com.
I know there are already service out there, but most of them lack the simplicity needed to reach non-technical users. Getting people away from these services is as much a marketing and user adoption problem as it is a technical one.
Some posters in the original thread had reservations about VPNs https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12980878 .
For me the benefit of a VPN would be protection against my ISP being hacked rather than stopping someone with sufficient motivated from GCHQ accessing my data.
As you grow, you do less of "belongs_to" and "has_many" and you do way more Ruby and way more Glue code that will work with all the models in the system and generate something for the user.
Scaling is a big issue, you constantly work around "best practices" that don't scale. (active-model-serialization for example) in favor of more fine-grained control over your models and data flow.
These days, the work is about 45-45-10, 45% you do APIs, 45% you do JS/React/etc... and 10% you do "Rails" (likely even less).
When the project grows, the monolithic nature of it starts to be a very big pain in the ass. We are moving more and more into services that do one thing well and not automatically include everything into the project.
Hope this answers your question
Tips:Forget Rails, Learn Ruby, HTTP, how things flow from the request to the response. Adopt universal best practices.
Indeed Rails is extremely good for prototyping, but building an actual MVP (let alone a product) takes a lot more than that + there are more stages that have been ommited for very good reasons from that video-tutorial.
Here's a few articles where drivers talk:
Same goes for Walmart. If you've been to Walmart and Starbucks it's pretty clear that most Walmart workers would never be able to get a job at Starbucks.
Very specific pens - pilot - G2
And then my usual setup - Macbook, Thunderbolt display, wired keyboard, apple mouse
That being said, I've been thinking of a rewrite in Delphi since it is a language I've wanted to learn and it would give me a native executable which would remove the need for .NET 4.6
There's a saying about it being 10x harder to refute bullshit than it is to spew it. How do we in the information and technology wing of society build tools to deal with that?
Alex Jones had a rant about how Obama and Hillary Clinton both smell like sulfur because they're demons.
I'd assert it's a "real story" and exactly the kind of filter bubble issue we're talking about as Alex Jones was personally thanked post election by Trump  and when it happened the sitting president of the United States made remarks about it .
I had a real conversation with an elderly relative of mine who told me quite straight faced that they read all about this and how it was true - this isn't bubbles it's different realities.
1 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-alex-jones_...
2 - http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/obama-sulfur-smell-al...
I would posit that part of the problem is the implicit assumption that biased != factual. This assumption is true on both sides of the political spectrum, but it takes on a different character for those on the right.
I understand the sentiment that prompted you to post this, I'm just not sure what you propose is any kind of a solution. If anything I believe it may make things worse by affirming the bias != factual assumption.
NYTimes is ranked moderately liberal while Fox News is ranked right (http://www.allsides.com/bias/bias-ratings)
Maybe just starting with a collection of opposing resources? There could be a call to action to ask people to submit articles or sources for various "stances" on different topics, and a list divided by topics and view points, or links to the few sane and awesome discussions you can occasionally find where people who think differently actually talk to each other about their differences like rational human beings. That might be an approachable place to start, anyway.
It happened on both sides, people were routinely taking everything Trump was saying and turning into a joke or making it out worse than it was (some things were very bad and deserved the attention, but lots of things weren't bad but were painted with that same brush). Until people are willing to admit that whatever the result will be of this kind of project will not address the root of the problem.
It sounds like a valuable project: good luck.
For instance, I would say CNN is biased toward coverage of school shootings and airplane crashes. CNN has the problem that there is not enough news to fill 24 hours so they run a heavy rotation of the same crap that is cheap to produce. Probably the best footage they show is stuff they downloaded off Youtube.
When you catch the CNN crew on a slow news Sunday they will admit that their problem is engaging an audience, both in the sense that they need to make money and also in the sense that they have some duty to inform the populace, the populace has duty to inform itself, etc. The truth is their content is boring, depressing, and awful but they have varied their formula a lot and they really believe they've found a local maximum of what people will watch.
In some sense CNN was biased towards Trump because he's interesting. I would look for news about Trump every day because it was likely he would say something crazy again and I think this was the case for a lot of other people. CNN, Fox News and MSNBC all had great ratings this season.
This 1971 book
is about as ahead of it's time as Ted Nelson's work and is very much about what news would be like in the age of the World Wide Web and it contains a damning indictment of the very concept of "news". (i.e. not only is there not enough news to fill a 24 hour tv show, but it's arguable that there is enough news to fill a newspaper every day)
The project is nascent, but it should be straightforward to implement (I have already begun to amass articles from several major news sources). While this may or may not be relevant to your stated goal, I'd be happy to share more info if you're interested!
Having been inspired by sama's dialogue regarding the downside of unfriending those with opposing views (on the election), I've militantly kept up on opposing Facebook friends' perspectives, giving conscious effort to see their point(s). I see the value in adding opposing news sources to my feed, but the rancor I see (on both sides) is a turn off. Haven't found reliable opposing sources that don't require that I, at least at some level, apply a sort of what I've come to refer to as 'normalizing' their points. So much emotionally charged rhetoric- I guess the 'sizzle' factor sells, but requires additional calories burnt to see through & try not to be disproportionally influenced by.
Maybe a sub-Reddit or sub-Voat -type thing could be built which includes meta-rating elements to allow for rating bias leanings. Dunno what kind of software might already exist that could do this kind of thing for cheap.
tl;dr:A failed Assembly project tried this recentlyIt's hard to create a fair Facebook feed of opposing viewsA Reddit/Voat -type board with meta-elements to track bias might exist cheap
The problem is cross-article context comparison is actually a bit harder than news article summarization and the amount of time required to pursue it made it seem a bit too much of a chore.
One extension would fall to politicians and public entities that make statements where it could validate/compare their statements to their historic actions. Beyond the "is this reporting accurate" it would go into "do we think this actor is being truthful based on historic behavior"
Edit: The other nice thing about this is that I could hear about the things that aren't the recent election cycle or terrorist attack. It's like sensationalist news signals were saturated which raised the noise floor drowning out all of the other news.
Instead of trying to determine which biased side an article is skewed towards and then finding other links to what is determined to be the "alternative view". Scrubbing bias or at least highlighting it is already helpful.
For example: at work we get daily emailed briefs with major business news items summarized to ~3-5 bullet points of facts. Journalist opinions/bias and rhetoric language is mostly removed in the bullet point sentences. It's not a perfect system by any means, not even close, and I would love to see something similar offered that's improved and expanded in what it can do.
This type of bias scrubbing/summarizing is easier in business news and sports news which involve more numbers and figures reporting (+nowadays many of the full articles may also be written entirely by bots - see link below). It would be harder to expand this for longer investigative/politics news articles. But a partial imperfect solution here is better than status quo.
I would be a user of a tool that could summarize key "unbiased facts" from articles and I would be interested in helping build it too.
Link to a NYT story about algos writing/summarizing news: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/opinion/sunday/if-an-algor...
However I don't think just pointing out bias will really help. People like their bubbles, and moving out of them is painful and potentially with real world consequences for them. I also think if you show a user an articles bias ahead of time, it will just be used as a filter or a way to reinforce their bubble. I thought this article was interesting.
If I said more asian people are smarter than white people I am biased and racist.
If I said more asians have black hair than white people I am not biased, I'm stating an objective fact.
The only fundamental difference between the two statements is that there are hard numbers lending support to one statement (asians having black hair) and the other statement does not. Neither statement, from a technical standpoint, can be verified definitively.
To build a machine that identifies whether or not a statement is biased one must first build a machine that identifies whether or not the underlying statement is true or false.
Building such a machine is an impossible endeavor because the means in which we identify whether or not something true or false is through data, a source which in itself can be biased.
My approach has been to obtain collections based on recommendations, filter out low quality material (bad audio, lots of ums, etc) and categorize it so you can explore freely.
Someone has to fund free content, and the missing topics are a form of bias - I can't guarantee that there is a counter-argument to every lecture.
So, I think for all the folks that know Facebook employees, break them out of their bubble (if they are already broken, commend them and encourage them to improve Facebook). Show them that Facebook is not so rosy colored as it claims, and that they have a responsibility to build tools that promote truth and inclusion.
Is there a solution? A biasometer?
i'd be interested in being an editor/philsoopher for a project like this, given that someone would need to determine what counts as bias and what doesn't.
i do think that apps to improve critical thinking are direly needed...
Caring about truth has to come from within.
In their own words:
"rbutr tells you when the webpage you are viewing has been disputed,rebutted or contradicted elsewhere on the internet."
We need to build more composable machine learning based tools, and then we can use machine learning on their results to determine which serve which purposes best.
Just seeing articles on the extreme side of each topic right next to each other shocked me.
The Pocket Browser Extension already does that.
>> There is voting, of course, but to become an informed voter all one needs to do is read a short guide about the candidates and issues before the election. Theres no need to have to suffer through the daily back-and-forth of allegations and counter-allegations, of scurrilous lies and their refutations. Indeed, reading a voters guide is much better: theres no recency bias (where you only remember the crimes reported in the past couple months), you get to hear both sides of the story after the investigation has died down, you can actually think about the issues instead of worrying about the politics.
People hear what they want to hear. If they are intentionally seeking out (or actively trying to create) echo chambers, you can't really stop that.
Additionally, studies consistently show that most people are pro choice. They also consistently show that most people are anti abortion.
In other words, no one is pro abortion. No one is "for killing unborn babies." But some people frame the political policies in terms of rights of the mother to choose and some frame it in terms of rights of the unborn to live.
There is no easy answer here. Pretty much everyone thinks that abortion should be a last resort, not some kind of primary method of birth control. But there is enormous fighting about exactly where and how to draw the line on who, what, when, where and how.
So one of the problems you will find is that when you try to get "both sides" of any argument (abortion is merely one example here):
A) Either they are talking about very different foundational ideas such that it is kind of disingenuous to frame them as "opposing arguments" or
B) You have a set of people with such narrow views that they can only conceive of two possible options here and the real answer is to be looking for "a third way."
I think a better answer is to write about a broader point of view that helps promote a non-binary conversation and thought process and that helps promote that "third way" that has some hope of addressing real concerns for "both sides."
It's extremely problematic to try to divide more than 300 million people into two camps and pretend that the millions of individuals making up each "camp" all uniformly agree with each other. Yes, people choose sides in order to try to exercise power. But that doesn't mean the camps really authentically represent the full views and sets of positions of any of their members, much less all (of their members).
I think your desire to create this is rooted in good intentions, but I suspect that something like this will just help entrench the "war" by further promoting the idea that there are, in fact, two camps and only two camps and every American needs to choose one. I realize that is not what you desire to do, but that may well be the result.
I find that trying to have meaningful and nuanced discussion with almost anyone at all (other than my sons) is incredibly hard because most people want to peg me as either "for" what they are for or "against" them. This leaves no room for positing a third way at all, much less a potential fourth, fifth or Nth way.
I choose to blog as my small pebble of contribution towards trying to combat the either/or thinking and trying to posit new mental models for old problems.
If you do start something, I would be happy to give feedback or have some kind of limited (probably short term/one time) role in its development. I am not looking for an on-going time commitment. Furthermore, although I support your position that it "will be" open source, I see zero reason why this must be non-profit. I think this is just another example of common thought patterns that somehow being non-profit means it will be done for the right reasons, in the right way, etc and this is absolutely not in any way guaranteed.
FALSE.LAUGHABLY FALSE.FALSE FALSE FALSE.
Let's make up a term called liberal privilege, the privilege to have your views reflected on all major US channels (CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, BBC, NYT, WaPo... etc.) ALL OF THE TIME.
They should have already been regulated as monopolies.
But the long term solution is decentralization technologies that will put them out of business. See https://reddit.com/r/rad_decentralization
I recently streamed a session like this @ my company (Trip.com) with one of the junior developers
Part1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYsuclajEBcPart2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-z7M4h3EzQ
This was his task and we just built it together while I am teaching/asking questions/explaining.
Important things to focus on
1. Thought process - cannot stress this enough, it is the most important thing to explain. Why are you doing X and just talk out what you think in your head2. Explain everything3. Leave a lot of time for questions and make sure you aren't impatient when a question is "basic". Make sure the engineer knows he/she can ask anything, nothing is too stupid or too basic.
Worst thing to do IMHO is just do "something cool". Just do the work inside the context of the environment you/him/she knows.
My 2 cents
measure what it means to have achieved the goal, example a flask backend using a user and customer model connected to a postgres db by Date.
Have courses, books and websites available for learning. Checkin on progress and help them bring it back into order when they go off the path.
Then using the goal, the date and the measure of success, evaluate the knowledge gained with them
It's simply not their style (to assassinate him). You can think of Western oppression as being snake-like, while Chinese or Russian oppression is dragon-like. If someone speaks out against the establishment in China or Russia, the response will be brute-force - the dissident will be assassinated. If someone speaks out against the establishment in the West, the response is far more insidious, they will run smear campaigns against you, call you a rapist etc, try to control information. Not unlike Scientology. An assassination is typically the last resort because of the extra paperwork involved.
2. Stay in Buffalo until you have something to show investors. Maybe even stay there afterward. Rents will bleed your company dry before it makes it out of the crib.
3. Use your imagination. Many coders of skill don't have compsci degrees and none would bat an eye at your background if you claimed you were an expert developer. Much more impressive would be the ability to sell and market and get funding for your ideas.
4. Computer History Museum, Google's campus (a little networking can net you a free lunch there), Land's end, Ocean Beach, 2nd & Market (SF).
5. If you can't sell to save your life, commit to building a project yourself and avail yourself to online code courses to learn the craft as you build.
1. I would try to find a technical co-founder. If you want to do a technical startup, there's often a lot more involved than just programming (including configuration and architecture). Of course, that's easier said than done. Let no one stop you from learning programming, if that's interesting to you, but it will definitely increase your odds of success if you have a co-founder who knows their stuff.
2. Would you recommend starting a startup in the Valley? No. Not if it's your first startup. My feeling is that nearly anywhere else is going to be cheaper. You'll be able to raise funding much more easily here when the time comes, but that's probably not going to happen right away. It's not as easy to raise investment as it might seem. That said, if you love it here, and it won't bankrupt you, go for it. But I would be wary.
3. What opportunities in the startup space are there with a BS in chemistry + MS in biology? There's always space for a good idea/execution, no matter the background. But -- the easy areas are crowded, the hard areas tend to fail because, well, they're hard. Looking at your domain, say Biology, are there areas that are under-served or poorly executed? But be careful, an easy answer to that might be hiding the devil in the details. It's a place to start, though.
4. What places should I visit while Im here? If it was me, I would hang out on University Avenue in Palo Alto; find someone at Google to invite you to lunch; check out event sites, like meetup.com, for things going on.
I don't know if that's good advice but it's my advice. Hope you have a great time on your trip, Mike!
A Master's in CS won't teach you programming. You can learn the programming part on your own with online content or a bootcamp. If you have been able to conquer that level of difficulty in academia, you should have no problem getting started with programming. It's unintuitive to most people from the outside but Computer Science and programming really are pretty separate things.
> 1.If youre not a technical founder but need to get programming done for your startup would you recommend...
This is a biased answer, but I am a one-man shop independent contractor software engineer who also takes freelance projects sometimes. There are certainly a few other people out there that offer similar services like me as well. I'm currently helping a non-technical client in a situation like yours build their MVP.
I also often encourage people to go work for a startup or try to understand the industry from the inside before founding.
Considering your background-- have you explored Biotech?
Before launching your own startup; suggest getting some base-level experience at any early-stage company > http://www.biospace.com/News/the-10-hottest-bay-area-biotech...
2. The valley is a good place to interact with people that is building things... But it is not THE place to be 100% of the time.
The best place to be is where you can get/onboard customers better. Maybe you can get an important market share from Buffalo. After all you live near financial market customers. Look what it makes sense to you.
Unless the US company wants to set up a Canadian corporation / subsiduary, and issue you a T4 and withhold (and pay half of) your EI and CPP (or pay some an external company to do it for them), odds are you'll be working as a self-employed consultant / contractor and sending them invoices for your services. The one US company I've interviewed with so far said this is the way they handle paying foreign workers.
A word of caution, you'll want to make sure - for both your sake and your employer's - that the CRA doesn't view you as an employee if you're claiming to be a self-employed contractor (penalties would apply.) I'd recommend reading more about it here (with links to CRA's site in the article), and discussing this with your accountant before signing an offer:
I'd also suggest your offer be explicit in matters of control over work, ownership of tools, and other items that could make the CRA feel you're an employee versus a contractor.
This will allow you to freely be in USA for work or stay in freezing cold miserable canadian winter if you so desire :)
Yeah and I tried to clear everything I could, but no dice.
They could potentially be using something based on this, https://panopticlick.eff.org
I get the feeling more and more that developers are embarrassed about using it, similar to how some devs are embarrassed about using PHP, yet it's still a workhorse.
For adding simple functionality to a web page, I would probably ever ONLY use jQuery. (Assuming plain js was going to be a hassle.)
FWIW I haven't used much jQuery for about the last 3 years, and all I do is web apps all day every day. The day I discovered Knockout (as the gateway drug) was the day life got exponentially better.
The way I build web apps is to use intercooler.js (which is built on top of jQuery) for my AJAX and then jQuery, or jQuery-based plugins, for UI needs.
Works great. Yes, the jQuery API has some aspects that haven't aged all that well, but it's a pretty well thought out and through library that provides great tools that should have been baked into all browser environments since the start, and that has a rich ecosystem around it to boot.
The jQuery haters are usually folks who tried to write an SPA with it, which they say, correctly, is a terrible idea. But then, building an SPA is usually a terrible idea as well.
I'm an Ember developer myself, and I love it, but there's no way in hell I'd use it for a small website. For that matter, I wouldn't use React or Angular 1.x either (I haven't had to do any project in Angular 2.x yet, so I don't really have an informed opinion yet).
So, that out of the way, next up is jQuery, which I think is still a perfect fit for smaller projects. The fact that you can just use it, without having to worry about any real initial prep-work, or having to compile anything, is almost kind of magical in this day and age.
jQuery is ok for super simple sites, but modern interfaces becomes more and more interactive and complex. Attempts to organise some logic via imperative jQuery way usually turns into hell. So, first of all it isn't scalable.
Btw, I wrote an article how Vue.js can replace jQuery for "websites", not only for "web applications": https://medium.com/@borisadimov/vue-js-the-second-breath-of-...
Of course jQuery is still a thing.
Can I ask how old you are, linkula? This seems like a question a 13 year old would ask.
For UI elements that have a lot of internal state, React can remove a ton of complexity. However, the delay between initial page render and the React component rendering itself can sometimes be distracting when those elements are key parts of the UI. This is a solved problem if you're using Node on the server, obviously, but if you're rendering pages with other server-side technology it is a drawback to React. jQuery does not have these issues as it just attaches itself to the server-rendered markup.
2.3 million downloads in the last month and 4883 dependencies... what do you think?
> -Its 2016 man, no one uses jQuery anymore, it ends up in a bunch of spaghetti code. Everyone knows that.
1. There are some edge cases where it is still useful and it would be way more painful to reimplement it in vanilla js (though maybe still possible). But in these edge cases why bother when:
2. In any largish project invariably _something_ will require jquery. Think Bootstrap or some widget library the boss/users absolutely want or something some "UI" person built themselves.
The frameworks you mentioned are not exactly in the same "niche" as jQuery, which encapsulates a friendly way to manipulate DOM, make ajax requests, etc.
However, if maintainability is your focus, write in plain js as much as possible. Frameworks come and go. Code written in ES5 will still work in 5 years from now, while jQuery code may get at least partially deprecated.
"webapps" typically use a concoction of 100+ js frameworks/plugins, including one of angular/react/ember/backbone (or in some really hotness of the month type places - more than one of those).
it's of useful to know jquery, just to keep things simple when you can.
Just have a mirror on github and they'll be none the wiser. Judging by how many people think linux is developed on github.
That said, if you use any of the services that provide a free hacker tier to open source projects, many only do that for GitHub projects today.
One workaround is to actually use another host, but mirror it back to GitHub.
In particular, I want to hear if they plan to make the hosted projects easier to discover and the developer pages more attractive. The amount of information developers can put on their gitlab and bitbucket homes is very limited. Does it really require that much effort to add a short bio and some external pointers (e.g. twitter, linkedin) to these pages?