A CEO's leanings are relevant when they are clearly stated, and inspire a large part of his strategy -- to take a similarly controversial subject in the US, imagine the CEO of a gun-maker “against weapons”; that would come off as hypocritical.
I don’t think that there is such a thing as being “against weapons” though. Some people don’t think that one should profit from the use of deadly force; in that case, not using a significant portion of that company’s profits to repair damages from misused weapons would be callous. In most cases, weapons manufacturer are direly aware of the issue with what they sell, and try to make better quality devices to prevent them. Namely, a policeman friend told me that Glocks (could be another brand, I know very little about firearms) were appreciated by her colleagues who do a lot of pursuits because they don’t tend to accidentally fire when they drop from their holster, a rare but potentially tragic event. Glock makes money from that fear, hopefully invest to mitigate it.
I know government processes better, and as someone who could be seen as a socialist, I agree with Musk on one thing: government is expensive. Unlike him, I think it’s generally cheaper than private companies or charity. However, in the industries where Musk operates (transport), his entrepreneurial talent makes his contribution much cheaper. He doesn’t like public money to be wasted — that’s his publicly stated “political leanings” and one that has motivated SpaceX existence. I don’t think it’s very controversial, actually (no one likes to waste money) but it is relevant. What he asks for is to have the ability to lower it.
Therefore: yes, his leanings matter. In that case, and probably a majority of his projects that are government-funded, they are so because it is cheaper to have Musk’s company do it. Which is good. I’m not a US tax payer, so I shouldn’t care so much, but I would say: there isn’t a contradiction with trying to improve what you think is broken. If he was asking to prevent competitors from entering the market for government-contract, there I could see an issue.
I just sent a push to BitBucket, and it seemed to be taking a while, so I figures I'd just grab a quick headline here, and the top story is BitBucket being down. So my timing is good?
Is it just slow for you? What connectivity are you using? For me it's not working at all. SSH says no suitable response from server. I had to merge a branch :(
They aren't, sovereignty is only a concept when each nation is capable of independence through economic, resource, and most importantly military. Since America spends more money on military than the next 9 largest spenders combined, America doesn't have to respect sovereignty. America's goal is to feed it's consumption, and ensure that nothing threatens the way of life for the wealthy at the cost of other nations. It frustrates me to no end because although I really hate this as a concept and practice, I really enjoy being given the opportunities that that this enables.
Yea, that's great and all but what happens when China and it's 1.4 billion people get their stuff together?
It's astounding that it seems that few in the US government seem to acknowledge that we may not be on top always, and what goes around comes around. There will be real future costs for our moral corruptness.
The military only comes into play under certain circumstances, for instance it gives the US a lot of leeway in Eastern Europe, as long as it acts as a credible counter-balance to Russia. It doesn't have so much of an effect in most of the rest of the developed world. The US is not going to invade Germany or France if they act independently to protect the interests of their citizens. In much of the world, the credibility of US actions matters just as much as brute strength, and that will become more and more the case. And arguably, in many circumstances, strength is better measured through economic leverage than military expenditure.
I'm going to be honest, until TechCrunch's article, I had thought that Google+ was already done. I haven't heard a single compelling reason to use it outside hangouts, but hangouts is not Google+. So as much as I hate to agree with TechCrunch, they see the writing on the wall.
I've been trying to get my friend's to use Google+ since we all spend so much time in Hangouts and Gmail (where you can see the G+ notifications). Hangouts is probably the best part of the "G+ revolution", and they really dropped the ball on the integration with G+ (I can't have an event attached to a hangout, etc.) as well as developer relations for building cool apps with Hangouts Chat (not just video). I hope that this means a more focused and deliberate shift to focusing on Hangouts. Hangouts video is great and chat is good, but could be so much better.
That number is inflated by adding YouTube users, which was a kind of social network with it's own kind of audience (notoriously trollish in some ways) before the shotgun wedding to G+.
My follower growth has slowed. The first product page I put on Google+ (a book about Android) got many followers quickly. Same with my personal page. The second time I put up a product page for a book, the response was much attenuated, and my follower growth has been slow and low quality. It wasn't great quality on Facebook either, but it was much faster. Maybe I need to see how well product pages would do on LinkedIn.
I started when G+ launched. 5500+ circlings, 2500+ to my first product page. Now I'm lucky if I get a single comment or +1. Meanwhile, I have 81 friends on Facebook and 10 followers, and it's a rare post that doesn't get comments and likes.
Why dont they say how many unique users create a daily post not generated from a app?
We are not talking about adding a youtube comment, uploading a photo with picasa or using the google play store. We are talking about actually using the thing.
I'm honestly not sure what to think. I post pictures that got a lot of great feedback on other places to Google+. Google+ reports that these pictures get hundreds of views, but almost no one +1s, shares, or comments.
I'm curious as to the definitions. Before I turned it off, I would see little notifications. I'd click them, and delete, or block someone. Is that active?
There are many things that you read that are neither enjoyable, nor easy to understand. Especially at a cursory read. That doesn't make the word less appropriate, nor does it make the word explore any more appropriate. I don't explore a quantum physics textbook, nor do I explore a journal article on tubulins. I read, I jot down notes, and I read some more.
