Reading list of books, magazines, newspaper articles, other physical documents, or online posts Playlist of posts listened to, or scrobbled Playlist of watched movies, television shows, online videos, and other visual-based events
In a statement, the White House said "White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day. We are grateful for his service and wish him the best."
My mom loves me. But she also “likes” me—a lot. And apparently, when she does so on Facebook, it’s hurting my chances of becoming the next viral sensation.
On his blog, engineer Chris Aldrich explains what he calls The Facebook Algorithm Mom Problem. When you post something on Facebook, and your mom is the first to like it (and how can she not? she’s your mom!), Facebook thinks it’s a family-related piece of content and sets the audience accordingly.
Facebook’s process for determining what goes into your News Feed is frustratingly opaque. However,…
Here’s Aldrich’s dilemma:
I write my content on my own personal site. I automatically syndicate it to Facebook. My mom, who seems to be on Facebook 24/7, immediately clicks “like” on the post. The Facebook algorithm immediately thinks that because my mom liked it, it must be a family related piece of content–even if it’s obviously about theoretical math, a subject in which my mom has no interest or knowledge. (My mom has about 180 friends on Facebook; 45 of them overlap with mine and the vast majority of those are close family members).
The algorithm narrows the presentation of the content down to very close family. Then my mom’s sister sees it and clicks “like” moments later. Now Facebook’s algorithm has created a self-fulfilling prophesy and further narrows the audience of my post. As a result, my post gets no further exposure on Facebook other than perhaps five people–the circle of family that overlaps in all three of our social graphs.
I, too, have a like-happy mom. Two seconds after I post a story I’ve written—say, a 3,000-word piece on state-imposed no-fishing zones—my mom will like it. She hasn’t read it, and probably never will, but she likes seeing her daughter’s face on her computer, and really, who can protest the unconditional support? But because of her eager click, Facebook lumps the content in with my photos of Baby’s First Avocado, and shows it only to a small group of family members.
Until Facebook stops penalizing mom auto-likes, Aldrich writes that you can sidestep the problem with a little extra effort. Here’s how to make sure your Facebook posts reach an audience beyond Mom, Aunt Susie and Uncle Ken in Kansas.
1) Set the privacy settings of your post to either “Friends except mom” or “Public except mom.”
I know what you’re thinking. How awful! How can you do that to your own mother? Did you know that birthing you took 38 hours? Millennials!
Wait, wait, wait, everyone. There’s a step two.
2) At the end of the day, or as soon as it seems as though the post reached its maximum audience, change the audience settings to “friends” or “public.” Aldrich has been doing this, and has been seeing more impressions on his posts. “I’m happy to report that generally the intended audience which I wanted to see the post actually sees it,” he writes. “Mom just gets to see it a bit later.”
Is a statue of Robert E. Lee lurking in your neighborhood? Statues, memorials and even schools are named in honor of the General who fought and failed to win independence in the US Civil War. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are more than 1,500 symbols of the Confederacy in public spaces across America, Lee included.
Another shift happened a few years ago, when I decided it was okay to develop just for myself, with no intention of ever releasing the stuff I was working on. That led to a new style of product, and a happier developer. I was always doing it for myself, and fooling myself into believing it was for other people. I'm no less a narcissist than anyone else. Once you own that, you get a lot more powerful, I have found.
As of October 30, 2016, I’ve slowly but surely begun posting what I’m actively reading online to my blog.
I’ve refined the process a bit in the last couple of weeks, and am becoming relatively happy with the overall output. For those interested, below is the general process/workflow I’m usi...
SO YOU WANT to change your Twitter handle.
When you got it two years ago, @PlankingGuy was funny, but today you get quizzical looks. @SexxyFoxxyMama was okay in college, but not on your new business cards. Or you realized @ERMAHGERD520 was a bit too hard for people to spell after all. You could just get a new account, but reacquiring your Following would be a pain, and you’d lose all your tweets.
Luckily, it’s very easy to update your handle. From your page, find the gear icon at the top right, click Settings, and it’ll be the first text box you encounter, labeled “Username.” If your new name is available, you can change it, and instantly you will be @NewName, without losing a single follower.
In my post “The Kolmogorov Option,” I tried to step back from current controversies, and use history to reflect on the broader question of how nerds should behave when their penchant for speaking unpopular truths collides head-on with their desire to be kind and decent and charitable, and to be judged as such by their culture. I was gratified to get positive feedback about this approach from men and women all over the ideological spectrum.
However, a few people who I like and respect accused me of “dogwhistling.” They warned, in particular, that if I wouldn’t just come out and say what I thought about the James Damore Google memo thing, then people would assume the very worst—even though, of course, my friends themselves knew better.
So in this post, I’ll come out and say what I think. But first, I’ll do something even better: I’ll hand the podium over to two friends, Sarah Constantin and Stacey Jeffery, both of whom were kind enough to email me detailed thoughts in response to my Kolmogorov post.
China has no reason to restrain Kim too soon, or for too modest a price.
I keep thinking of the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis. This terrifying episode was a very complicated game of diplomatic maneuvering and military posturing, with a thermonuclear exchange between the U.S. and the USSR as the consequence of a misstep.
But that apocalyptic situation had one big advantage over the present one: John Kennedy, Nikita Khrushchev, and Fidel Castro were all sane, rational beings. The same cannot be said about the two protagonists to the Korea crisis, Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un. In Kim, Trump has met his match.
This is apparently the article that began Bannon’s ouster from the administration.
Earlier today, Cloudflare terminated the account of the Daily Stormer. We've stopped proxying their traffic and stopped answering DNS requests for their sites. We've taken measures to ensure that they cannot sign up for Cloudflare's services ever again.
Our terms of service reserve the right for us to terminate users of our network at our sole discretion. The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology.
Our team has been thorough and have had thoughtful discussions for years about what the right policy was on censoring. Like a lot of people, we’ve felt angry at these hateful people for a long time but we have followed the law and remained content neutral as a network. We could not remain neutral after these claims of secret support by Cloudflare.
Now, having made that decision, let me explain why it's so dangerous.
Some interesting implications for how the internet works as a result of this piece.
Steve Bannon's White House colleagues can't believe what they're reading tonight — and here's the twist: neither can Bannon.
The White House chief strategist has told associates he never intended to do an "interview" with an editor at the American Prospect, a left-wing publication.
Bannon has told associates that he admired the author's stance on China, and so called the journalist, Robert Kuttner, on Tuesday, to discuss his piece. Apparently Bannon never thought that the journalist might take his (very newsworthy) comments and turn them into a story. It's Anthony Scaramucci all over again (minus the curse words.)
The result is not good for Bannon, who is already under pressure, with colleagues lined up against him and a president who agrees with him ideologically but tells associates he thinks Bannon is a leaker.
Michelle Woo (Lifehacker)
Chris Aldrich (BoffoSocko)
