oneloop

8 ms·

1.
by oneloop 10y ago
Actually, I've only started commenting a few months ago. I also missed that thread about the lawsuit. Anyway, doesn't matter. Thanks.
2.
by oneloop 10y ago
I just thought it was interesting. What's the protocol to share something I find interesting and not directly related to the main thread? Create a whole new thread?
3.
by oneloop 10y ago
> but on the other hand, investors are surprised to hear there are still 500 million Yahoo users. Not the onion.
4.
by oneloop 10y ago
Come on... WikiLeaks drops shit on Clinton, blame Russia. Mayer does a terrible job, blame Russia. Who wants to bet that next we'll hear Elizabeth Holmes blaming Russia for her silly Edison machines not working properly.
5.
by oneloop 10y ago
Ouch that's painful to look at.
6.
by oneloop 10y ago
The most recent files are from 2013. This seems abandoned. Am I missing something?
7.
by oneloop 10y ago
Hah good point. So Theranos is literally fighting for their lives, because if one investor gets 25% of their money back, all the other investors will want the same.
8.
by oneloop 10y ago
Basically, when she said "our machines, which we have already deployed in production and doctors are using them to make potentially life/death decisions, can do X". At that point.
9.
by oneloop 10y ago
How do you know that Madoff was malicious from the outset, I wonder? The guy had a 30 year career, have you studied his beginnings? Maybe you did, but knowing nothing I'd find it more plausible that the guy started small fudging a coup
10.
by oneloop 10y ago
> I don't think being comparable to Putin is good or smart. I get what you're saying, but this has been textbook politics since forever. The most reliable way to rally people around you is convince them there is a great danger
11.
by oneloop 10y ago
Will discovery be made public?
12.
by oneloop 10y ago
Probably. I'd imagine that's why Theranos will insist part of the deal is that the exact terms will never be disclosed.
13.
by oneloop 10y ago
This comment contains more information than the article linked. I was reading the article and the whole time I was thinking that the author would eventually say something substantive about unit economics. But no.
14.
by oneloop 10y ago
> Of course you could call me myopic for not believing your scenario. 9/11 Truthers could say the same. Dude, no need for this style of conversation.
15.
by oneloop 10y ago
So you're kind of agreeing with me...?
16.
by oneloop 10y ago
> As far as I know from the debate, Trump does not adore Russia. Yeah, who knows, the guy is a moron, I'm not sure he himself knows what his position on the subject is. > When I heard in the debate what Clinton wants; She wants t
17.
by oneloop 10y ago
Well, I hope you're right. I think that we humans find it hard to conceive such humongous changes in the world around us. We're used to a certain background in our lives and under-estimate the likelihood of any scenario that chang
18.
by oneloop 10y ago
Well, they're very different in terms of domestic policy, but not in terms of foreign policy.
19.
by oneloop 10y ago
> 1.) you're assuming voting for hillary is automatic war with Russia. and would vote based on that single fallacy. No, I'm assuming that hillary would be very similar to obama and bush. You're the one making the wrong ass
20.
by oneloop 10y ago
Yes, I do care. I think morally there are circumstances where attack is justified, for example if one believes to be under very serious danger. Do you not agree with this? Another question is whether or not that is the case for this instanc
21.
by oneloop 10y ago
Dude, you didn't need all the citations. I am very keenly aware of every stupid thing Trump has ever said, probably. And I repeat that all of those things are secondary compared to this. Unfortunately, I don't think war with Russi
22.
by oneloop 10y ago
> Check out Trump's rhetoric: he admires Putin, he clearly doesn't want war. Check out Clinton's rhetoric: conflict. I am embarrassed to say, but you've just changed my mind to vote for Trump. I'm fundamentally a
23.
by oneloop 10y ago
Do you know what his explanation for that is?
24.
by oneloop 10y ago
Thank you. Very clever. I'm stealing it.
25.
by oneloop 10y ago
Is there some pun here that I'm missing? :D
26.
by oneloop 10y ago
> If you're British you're likely to have a bias but less so. Explain to me again why if you're British you're less likely to have a bias? > A British citizen-only would not have a conflict of interest as such. Ah,
27.
by oneloop 10y ago
Meaning, the nonprofit will call for meeting with adwords and never actually use them?
28.
by oneloop 10y ago
There's so many things wrong with what you said. A) It's not true that people "splurge" it on adwords. Adwords gives you a finite amount, so you have an interest in being as efficient as possible, at least if you care ab
29.
by oneloop 10y ago
> They need academics to provide economic advice but it should be impartial right? And brits are more impartial, is that it?
30.
by oneloop 10y ago
Yikes. Time to leave before they start rounding us up.

More ›