This is in comparison to the real world. It's not intended as some ideal to strive for.

And what are the stats in the _real world_?

I get what you're saying about it feeling quite tiny; however, look at it this way: that's like one active website for every 15 people on the planet!

Winning isn't strictly about money.

You don't need money to report to authorities, only to battle over in court.

But they do influence, and influence can make a difference. If not through twitter, how else would/should politicians connect with people?

edit: I say this as someone who doesn't use twitter; it still seems like it has value, albeit small or insignificant at times

Having left his job more than 15 years ago, is there any chance that he's simply not aware of the actual methods they're using?

I know in other fields the ability to do concept searching (via LSI and other techniques), rather than simple text based searching, has been in use for many years. His example/problem of a search for "bomb" bringing up noise (such as an email talking about a QB throwing a 'bomb' pass) should have long ago been solved.

I'm not going to nitpick about any individual discussion points you guys have going on, but I'll chime in to say that your approach to thinking about men/women in our society seems...disingenuous.

We can imagine utopia and then imagine how we would treat people in that setting. That seems to be what you're doing. But if we're not actually in utopia, then we really are tipping the scales in some way. And that does suck, and sometimes that means that one group is going to be treated unfairly, but often it's about the lesser of evils.

disingenous: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically

I'll do you the honor of not questioning your sincerity without even making an effort to address any specific thing you said. Seems like an almost...pusillanimous...thing to do.

> We can imagine utopia and then imagine how we would treat people in that setting.

I am not suggesting a solution to the existence of injustice, which is what a utopia would entail. I am merely pointing out that simplistic rhetoric about believing accusors will not solve the problem.

> But if we're not actually in utopia, then we really are tipping the scales in some way. And that does suck, and sometimes that means that one group is going to be treated unfairly, but often it's about the lesser of evils.

And there we part ways. Adding up all the bad stuff that happens to one group, comparing it to all the bad stuff that happens to another group, and saying "if this makes the bad stuff in the big pile smaller, then having more bad stuff in the small pile is acceptable collateral damage" is not a good approach. Applied in the large it would quite likely lead to two much bigger piles. I know you probably don't recognise that as what you're doing, but your reasoning is far too simplistic given the complexities of the problem.

I was commenting on the mindset one would have to take the positions you have, which is why I didn't address individual points. I guess that was lost on you.

edit: fine, apparently people get downvoted if they're not pedantic.

"and saying "if this makes the bad stuff in the big pile smaller, then having more bad stuff in the small pile is acceptable collateral damage" is not a good approach. Applied in the large it would quite likely lead to two much bigger piles."

Show your work. Why is that "likely" to lead to two bigger piles?

Isn't the point of that comment precisely to discourage someone who might otherwise think the task to be smaller than it is? It's okay to discourage if it helps people understand scope.

This is good advice; do you think most companies are against side projects, or is it just unlucky that you've worked for so few that are okay with it?

I guess it would surprise/disappoint me if the majority of companies disallow programming on the side.