kategorie: etc ×

While @WIRED US is do­ing its ”equa­li­ty“ is­sue, @WIRED_Ger­ma­ny thinks that this is an ap­pro­pria­te spea­k­er line-up con­fe­rence.wired.de/con­fe­ren­ces/wi…

Jo­han­nes Kles­ke (@jk­les­ke02.11.2015 8:48


auf ner kon­fe­renz, auf der nur män­ner spre­chen, is ne „af­ter­par­ty“ die lo­gi­sche kon­se­quenz.


stand 14 uhr: mit do­ro­thee bär wur­de die ers­te frau an die zwei­te stel­le auf der „spea­k­ers“-lis­te ein­ge­fügt und mit josé ma­ria­no ló­pez-ur­dia­les der acht­zehn­te mann, et­was ver­schämt an der zwölf­ten stel­le.


stand 18:30 uhr: die „af­ter­par­ty“ wur­de auf der in­fo­sei­te ab­ge­sagt, jetzt gibt’s „IN­TER­NA­TIO­NAL EX­PERTS AND IN­FLUEN­CERS, PRE­MI­UM NET­WOR­KING, DRINKS, FOOD AND A GET TOG­E­THER“.


What the histo­ry of ca­me­ra sa­les looks like with smart­phones In­cluded

(Source: bit.ly/1EqUYC7) pic.twit­ter.com/ve2gA­leHkt

Max Ro­ser (@Ma­xCRo­ser02.11.2015 8:28


Ein wich­ti­ger Hin­weis auf der Zug­toi­let­te. pic.twit­ter.com/PfWd­mYbNR6

Kath­rin Pas­sig (@kath­rin­pas­sig01.11.2015 18:14



Son­nen­un­ter­gang und Bo­den­ne­bel

(@ron­sens_01.11.2015 19:58


Litt­le oran­ge ri­ding hood.

Ge­org Rehm (@ge­or­grehm01.11.2015 17:20


Wenn ich mal alt bin, dann ...

Bernd Baltz (@bbaltz01.11.2015 17:14


mi­cha­el kon­ken ist ein ver­le­ger? der DJV ist ein ver­lags­ver­band?


auch die­ses jahr müs­sen wir die tre­ats alle sel­ber es­sen. #ha­loween


  Ro­bert Sco­ble - I no­ti­ced that a few peo­p­le keep as­king …

Ro­bert Sco­ble:

I no­ti­ced that a few peo­p­le keep as­king about whe­ther one so­cial net­work or ser­vice or an­o­ther will be a good com­pe­ti­tor to Face­book. They sim­ply don't do any cri­ti­cal thin­king and I find I just don't have time any­mo­re to con­sider the­se claims.

Here's a hint: le­t's say your new so­cial thing is hot. Well, then it'll need big­ger dat­a­cen­ters than Face­book has. Now, how is your new hot thing go­ing to get, say, $4 bil­li­on to build said dat­a­cen­ters? Not to men­ti­on that Face­book has thou­sands of en­gi­neers, most of whom are paid more than $100,000 a year. You think your new thing is gon­na be able to take on Face­book? Ask Goog­le how that all work­ed out.

Yeah, I know you can use Cloud Com­pu­ting, but you re­a­dy for In­sta­gram's AWS bills? Even Face­book is loo­king at tho­se with a fine tooth comb now (they are in the mil­li­ons, I hear, every month, and that num­ber is old).

And, how are you gon­na get your logo on every taco truck in the world?

Me­di­um right now is bur­ning my pho­ne up with no­ti­fi­ca­ti­ons. So, how is your ser­vice go­ing to fil­ter out the crap? (Hint: fil­te­ring RE­QUI­RES you to share so­me­thing about yours­elf. In other words your sys­tem MUST gather pri­va­te info about you). I just tur­ned off Me­di­um be­cau­se the no­ti­fi­ca­ti­ons no lon­ger are most­ly of in­te­res­t­ing things said by in­te­res­t­ing peo­p­le.

How is your ser­vice go­ing to make mo­ney? Oh, re­al­ly, you are­n't go­ing to have ad­ver­ti­sing? Tha­t's nice. So you are gon­na get a bil­li­on peo­p­le to quit using Face­book and move over to your thing and, say, pay $10 a month like I pay for Spo­ti­fy? I don't think so!

Fi­nal­ly, how is your ser­vice go­ing to get the best con­tent de­ve­lo­pers onto it? A fri­end of mine buys ad­ver­ti­sing for Kia. She just paid a fa­mous In­sta­gram user $50,000 for ONE PHO­TO that had their car in the back­ground. So you think that In­sta­gram VIP is gon­na move over to your ser­vice that pays a few cents per 1,000 views? You are nuts.

Un­til you can fi­gu­re tho­se things out, lea­ve me alo­ne.

Face­book, Lin­ke­dIn, Snap­chat, Next­Door and Twit­ter are in the power seat. Don't bo­ther me un­til you have a REAL al­ter­na­ti­ve. Thanks.

Fi­nal­ly, I won't even men­ti­on the­se new things by name. Why? I only hate things I re­spect. Why? Be­cau­se I know at least 10% of you dis­agree with ever­y­thing I wri­te or vi­deo. You are here just to hear the other side from whe­re you are. So if I hate on so­me­thing tho­se things get a nice au­di­ence for free. I won't do that any­mo­re.

Have a gre­at weekend!

That all said, I joi­n­ed We­Chat this week and have hundreds of mes­sa­ges al­re­a­dy (alt­hough Mes­sen­ger is bet­ter here, and has far less spam). So you want to com­pe­te? Go to a mar­ket that mat­ters, like Chi­na or In­dia. But keep in mind that Mark Zu­cker­berg al­re­a­dy is fo­cu­sed on tho­se two mar­kets too. Trans­la­ti­on: if you know how to code why don't you do so­me­thing else with your skills?

(via aa­ron­pare­cki.com)


grün­kohl mit krebs­wurst, grob nach die­sem re­zept, kar­tof­feln nach die­ser vor­la­ge ge­schält



Last night was fun!

#an­ge­flixt #brea­king­bad #nar­cos

Ma­ria (@ma­ria­plays30.10.2015 12:02


heu­te abend gib­t's #dö­ner


  De-an­ony­mi­zing Face­boo­k's app-sco­ped ids

Ryan Bar­rett:

Face­book has ta­ken ple­nty of cri­ti­cism for pri­va­cy pro­blems over the ye­ars, and it's in­ves­ted ple­nty of re­sour­ces in re­spon­ding. One spe­ci­fic pro­blem ear­ly on was that third par­ty apps could com­bi­ne their data to crea­te deeper user pro­files for track­ing and ana­ly­sis. If one app could­n't get per­mis­si­on to see a Face­book user's fri­ends, for ex­am­p­le, it might quiet­ly part­ner with an­o­ther app that did in­s­tead of try­ing har­der to get of­fi­ci­al per­mis­si­on. Face­book fi­xed this in their v2.0 API by gi­ving each app its own set of app-sco­ped user ids.



Den Rest mei­nes Le­bens wenn ich un­fröh­lich bin, wer­de ich die­ses Vi­deo mit @di­plix an­se­hen - you­tu.be/2MWcgTShTZ4 #net­flix #dare­de­vil

Pa­tri­cia Camma­ra­ta (@das­nuf30.10.2015 8:40


The­re is a 11" Ma­book Air and a 13" iPad.

#Mo­bi­le­On­ly? Need new ca­te­go­ries.

Mal­te Ubl (@cram­force27.10.2015 17:51


cock­tail mit ba­con und räu­cher­stäb­chen