And "your time" counts when we discuss "how long"...

Short links are intended to be transient. They're used in environments meant to be transient (tweets, emails, phone text messages etc.).

No, we don't need to hoard every single tweet into eternity because someone said so. Let them go. Let them fade away. They want to fade away. We need that space for another fresh batch of trillion tweets with short links in them.

This entire drama around everyone having their own short link server because-what-if-bit.ly-goes-down is just an example of developers having too much free time on their hands.

If you want your link to have durability - don't shorten it. Simple, right?

Because if you start using the CPU all the time, your battery is done.

"What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!"

Preserving an animal's life artificially until it's so old it dies from its age is what is actually unnatural (also see the original point 3). So the focus should not be on extending an animal's life length, but improving those animals' life quality.

And actually if you would replace "animal" with "human" in anything I say, it still applies. This is how you know I'm not discriminating against an animal's life. Which would be pure ignorance.

Heck, many are written in Flash too. Yes, Flash.

I actually consider it a very healthy sign that the people complaining about Objective C are a vocal minority whining about such silly, unfocused, vague things.

It means Objective C is doing quite fine, thank you very much.

2. Animals, just like humans, die. There's no way around it. Even if the entire world decides not to eat a particular goat, that goat will die. And when an animal dies, it gets eaten - no exception. Either by microorganisms, or higher level organisms. The problem isn't why animals die, it's how animals live. Even if an animal is bred for food, it doesn't have to lead a miserable life, and it doesn't mean we should not respect that life on its own merit. So again, don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

3. I agree. But say, if an old animal wants to die, can I eat it?

No, charity doesn't need your branding efforts. It needs accountability.

Throwing money at a generic "charity" initiative is the best way to see your money disappear in the pockets of a handful of corrupted individuals.

When giving for charity, you need to be able to see what exactly results from what you gave.

Say, $10 million required to build a hospital with this and that, all written in specs, and by year 2016. People pool money, and if the funding goal is reached, the providers keep the people taking the money accountable to build the hospital to specs.

And not "give for charity", feel good, go back to your life, and achieve absolutely nothing because no one is held accountable.

The latter is what 90% of charity is like. It's only remotely better than throwing money at lottery tickets and hoping it results in good things.

And then you're surprised why Larry Page has the common sense to say the things he says.

1. Distance. One obvious discrepancy is that the closer you look at the photo the less detailed it'll look. That's the opposite of how actual "vision" works. Even in dogs. You need to know how far away you should look at the photo, at what DPI screen in order for it to be even remotely representative for what it "feels" like for a dog to see.

2. Original image dpi. The second flaw is that if that image was a 600 dpi photo McNamara processed through the same filter, it wouldn't have lost nearly as much information percentage-wise, as a small image would.

3. What is "human vision"? The original image doesn't represent "human vision". It's a photo captured by a camera, resampled to a specific (small) resolution. Wolfram Alpha can't know how typical human vision "dpi" applies to that particular photo, because it needs to know a lot of information about the camera lens and sensor, which it doesn't know. So it can't approximate the dog version out of it by using relative human-to-dog metrics.

I love Wolfram & all their products.

However, sorry, but that "dog vision" image is not scientific. It's just bullshit.

Would an accountant know enough to safely store "wallets", to monitor "blockchains". Is this in their training? No. You can have perfect accounting and still turn out you lost the wallets.

Bitcoin's problem is that there's no other asset in human history so easily misplaced, lost, or stolen. A bunch of numbers on a bunch of vulnerable computers.

In fact, I think it's some sort of super power.

Every decision has a ROI. The line where ROI meets costs is your maximum budget for a decision, after which point it costs you more to remain in the decision phase that it costs you to follow the best of the few "imperfect" decisions you have in mind (one of them includes the decision to stop "deciding", do nothing, and move on - that's still deciding).

That idea so far is rational. If you wear nothing you'll remain naked. If you don't eat you'll die.

And most of all, being stuck deciding forever just about anything is not rational.

So this person is unable to sense his "decision budget" and decides forever, while most people have facilities (impatience, impulsiveness in some degree, boredom etc.) to work around us being stuck forever after our decision budget is spent.

Spending to get positive ROI is rational. Spending infinitely beyond that point is not.