billionaire media tycoon and mayor of san francisco. vp @foundersfund. ringleader @hereticon. editor-in-chief @piratewires 
Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Why is it the case that centralized voting systems (i.e. Oscars, Grammys, etc.) carry more prestige than decentralized/democratic ones (millions of fans voting for best picture)? Do we value the opinion of a select few (the academy) over millions of fans?
the answer to this question contains the key to whatever black magic it is that keeps the new york times alive
Those awards emerged pre-internet when content discovery/distribution was necessarily more tethered to broadcast media & had more time to be venerable. Curating who votes & by what standards are framed more as a brand now & offer denominating “knowledge.” Not default prestigious
My uninformed guess: legacy belief that expert curation yields better results when judging an art. And it might in some cases. Would a popular vote yield the right National Medal of Science winner? Or do too few peeps have 'taste' in mathematics, for instance, to have opinion?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
