Your premises are flawed. Human brain power is not an additive substance. So 1000 brains are in no sense of the term 1000 times more powerful than one brain.
Crowds don't actually have wisdom. All they really have is consensus.
As such, if a problem is the kind of thing that one person usually gets wrong, then it's also the kind of thing that the majority of a million-person crowd will also get wrong.
This. Each brain acts independently, and some brains have access to rather more or less data (and yes, processing power too) than others when it comes to making a decision on any given subjects. It's more of a surprise when the majority chooses correctly given superficially-appealing conflicting arguments on esoteric subjects it doesn't really understand.
Cool! This will be awesome for implementing feature on cross-platform devices. I can definitely see a use case for standardizing mailing across, e.g., several different mobile platforms. Just keep the POST request object across all of them and send the request however is convenient.
Thanks, I definately need to get better at filtering out the noise. I may just open it up to let people flag the noise themselves but hopefully I can improve the automated filtering to a point it's 'good enough'.
I agree with skyo and aphexairlines. I've found Amazon a fantastic place to work and am, frankly, baffled by the flak it's taking here in the comments. My experience at Amazon has been fun and rewarding, and I'm thrilled to be a coder at such an awesome company.
I guess your mileage may vary, but I've found AMZN to be an awesome place to be a programmer.
Speaking as someone who has had to maintain code written by someone who "learned" from these books, I completely agree. What was there was certainly C++ in a purely linguistic sense, but as code it was complete gibberish.
I am maintaining "code" written by person who was given this kind of book and told to build ERP. (This person don't have any previous knowledge on programming, mathematics or even computers)
You attack Libertarianism on the grounds that it has adherents that disagree widely on several topics. So does that mean that if I found some Objectivists that disagreed on points of policy, that Objectivism would "mean so many things that it means nothing?" Your argument certainly seems to imply as much.
Crowds don't actually have wisdom. All they really have is consensus.
As such, if a problem is the kind of thing that one person usually gets wrong, then it's also the kind of thing that the majority of a million-person crowd will also get wrong.