Kethal

joined 2 years ago
[–] Kethal 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

By your definition, banks and credit card companies are technology companies. Visa has three times as many users and countless more database transactions than Twitter. The finance sector develops and uses algorithms - Fico scores being a notable one. Tons of people use technology. Twitter isn't even notable for it's usage of technology. Tons of companies, including Visa, have more impressive and expansive use of the same things twitter uses. A company is a tech company if it develops and sells technology, not if it uses it.

[–] Kethal -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It's a media company. The only difference between them and a newspaper is a short word limit and they don't pay their authors. No one is paying Twitter for technology that they produce or for technological services. They get money from ads and subscriptions - the media business model.

[–] Kethal -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Countless companies that are not technology companies use these same technologies in the same ways. Using technology does not make something a technology company.

[–] Kethal 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (10 children)

It's a media company. Why are so many people here calling in a technology company - because they have a Web site? They do not develop, produce or sell any technology product. They operate a Web site and sell ad space, just like every newspaper, magazine and TV network. Are we calling the New York Times a technology company?

[–] Kethal 5 points 2 years ago

It's odd how many people in this thread are calling Twitter a tech company. It's a media company, closer to the New York Times and Washington Post than to Google or even something like John Deere.

[–] Kethal 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I see the role of moderators as guiding the flow of people's interests. If you went solely on upvotes, it wouldn't matter what you called the community or whether it had moderators. If you want it to be about technology, make it that way. If you want it to be about the business decisions of social media companies tangentially related to technology, at least do the kindness of changing the name so that people don't mistakenly come here thinking they'll hear about new technology.

[–] Kethal 51 points 2 years ago (14 children)

I was under the impression that this was a community to discuss technology, not one that discusses the business decisions of companies in the technology sector, and certainly not the decisions of a social media company that is only tangentially related to the technology sector.

[–] Kethal 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The scientific definition of "fruit" is the ripened ovary of a flowering plant. This differs from the normal usage so some things not commonly considered fruit, such as tomatoes and the pods of soybeans, are fruits by this definition. Flowering plants (not all plants have flowers) have male and female anatomical structures. Many species have both structures in one flower. Some species have flowers that contains either male or female structures. These flowers can either be on the same plant (monoecious), like watermelon and corn, or on different plants (diecious), like papaya. The ovary, what will become the fruit, is a female anatomical structure, and it makes no sense to talk about a male fruit for any type of flower. Male flowers produce pollen, which fertilizes the embryo in an ovary, but male flowers themselves don't produce fruit.

[–] Kethal 2 points 2 years ago

My first thought was that a lot of people didn't get your joke, but I got a lot of downvotes for my straightforward comment, so I think you're getting downvoted by both the people who don't get the joke and the people who do get the joke, but think that In N Out has a decent burger.

[–] Kethal 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I don't see how that helps employees purchase the company. If anything, it would raise the value of the company, making the current owner either hold on to it or raise the asking price.

[–] Kethal 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Because "efficiency" here ill defined, 100% is not the most efficient a heater can be. Heat pumps move more heat than is needed to power them, are much more efficient than electric heaters, and have "efficiencies" well over 100%. Good ones have 400% "efficiency", in that 1 J consumed will put that 1 J into the the substance and move another 3 J from the environment (thus cooling the environment) into the substance.

If you use a heat pump water heater, it will help cool your house. In areas that cool in the summer, it's essentially free hot water. In the winter overall energy consumption to offset the cooling breaks even compared to an electric water heater.

Similarly, air source heat pumps are much more efficient than gas or electric furnaces for heating a building. They're comparable to a typical AC unit for cooling, as an AC unit is just a heat pump.

In many regions, ground source heat pumps are even more efficient for both heating and cooling, because the ground temperature is nearly constant and at a convenient temperature, so it serves as a huge source and sink of energy.

[–] Kethal 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

How can I contribute?

view more: ‹ prev next ›