I am not so sure that is the reason for WhatsApp crazy validation. I feel that the reason for that was that it represented a danger for Facebook and Mark wisely acquired at any cost.
WhatsApp is big outside of the US because (at least in Panama, were I was born) text messages are not included in the mobile phone plan; however, you can get a data plan for a monthly fee and keep in contact without additional charges. In the US most people use text messages to communicate.
Maybe he can edit his resume/CV and remove the date from items that would hint toward his age. This way the companies might give him the chance to show his experience in Django during an interview.
How about remote work within the European Union? I am in the US so I am not familiar with how common that is in Europe.
The author is saying that Facebook doesn't deliver a shred of value to any of it's 1 billion users, and if it disappeared tomorrow, "no one would give a shit." Tptacek disagrees, saying Facebook helps him connect with friends and local businesses. That's why he doesn't "get" the point.
I would say the Pages product is one of Facebook's strongest value points outside all of the peer-to-peer social networking. Small businesses don't have the time, energy, or money to host a custom websites and mailing lists to communicate with their fans. Pages make it incredibly easy -- deals, announcements, and advertising all wrapped into a single product.
+100. Facebook has reinvented the AOL keyword from the outside in. Even major brands that can afford to spend big money on their web sites mention the Facebook url in their promotions. Twitter too, but they haven't done as much to let brands to customize their pages.
I wonder how effective something like Kick Starter would be if it was applied to lobbyists? I mean, at some point it was supposed to be that whoever got elected represented the people. But now it is obvious that the elected just represent who ever gave them the largest amount of money. Could crowd Funding compete with big Co. and wealthy individuals?
Yes, the idealist in me wants to believe the system can be changed. But I am getting close to 30 and I haven't bought any new Bad Religion CD/MP3 since I was 22 to fuel the idealist in me.
But realistically, politicians want the largest amount of money over time - crowdsourcing couldn't affors to pay off a politician every year. Not to mention, they'd likely just ignore the crowd sourced payoffs - there's money, and then there's money + power.
Are you sure? What if the crowdsourced money is divided up front, and payed to the politician in yearly chunks, maybe with an appointed trustee able to cancel the payments?
Not sure what you mean by money + power.
What about non-profit organizations with charters to change legislation? Instead of raising funds to lobby, you raise funds to form an endowment. The proceeds from the endowment are used for lobbying until such time as the legislative goal is achieved.
One the goal is achieved the funds can be distributed to another cause, redirected towards another goal, or kept as is with the goal and preventing future legislation from erasing the gains.
Instead of contributing to one politician perhaps we should be contributing to an army of lobbying pools that match our desired policy outcomes?
