answerer

That's not sales, that's "question answerer". Real sales has an active component.

Very impressive how close the answerer gets to the questioners mock up. Good job that man!

It wasn't my question, I was just the answerer. Truth be told, it appears open again right now, something happened after the last time I checked it.

You should be charging the asker 30% more - so the answerer might "see" get $35 but the asker is actually paying $50. Subtle difference ...

The various feynman "fun to imagine" videos, one of which is linked by the answerer, are amazing. I advise you to watch all of them as soon as you can.

But the answerer doesn't check the returned hits, and just smugly slaps lmgtfy in to "teach" the asker a lesson about searching before asking.

It pays the vast, vast, vast majority of question answerers in worthless or near worthless points. The average question answerer, including the ones that get flown places and "treated like a VIP" is probably actually getting less than minimum wage for their work.

True, but sometimes questions also don't show a whole lot of effort on the part of the asker, and so the answerer is not inclined to put in much of their own. If I'm going to ask a question and want a thorough answer, I try to at least provide a little background on what I already know.

I've found it to be sort of annoying as an answerer, though, and don't really hang out there looking for interesting questions to answer anymore. The biggest problem is that some people treat it like a game of Jeopardy, except with no penalty for incorrect answers.

If an answerer has the opportunity to earn real money for their time, it might be theorized that they would opt for that over the karma systems. It makes sense for a greater breadth of expertise, as respect loses its inherent value as you grow beyond the social circles or occupational circles.

The problem that I see in the way these questions get asked or answered is in the speculation they leave up to the answerer to interpret. Asking the FBI whether an attack would haven't been thwarted if this tool didn't exist allows the FBI to answer from the imaginary perspective of having no tool at all.

As soon as I started explaining my concern to the committee phone-answerer, they stopped me and forwarded me to another line, that allows me to record comments "for the full committee", and which is "checked periodically". In other words, there doesn't seem to be any real way to complain to the committee about this.

If the answerer brought up the difficulties in assuming perfect parallelizability or specific to compression algorithms or choice of inputs, that'd be worth some extra credit, and would trigger followups along the lines of, "how would those factors affect the size?" and "what bottlenecks might you expect?"

There's a degree of opinion in most answers anyway especially as there's often multiple ways to do the same thing and every answerer will have a preference of some kind. I don't necessarily see this one as a particularly subjective discussion anyway, or why you think I'm trying to make SO be something it's not.

I have suspected for some time that Congresspeople ask their questions with a public entendre that has a separate, specifically-defined term that allows the answerer to sound like they're answering clearly and forthrightly, but which requires a parse in order to say, "hey, they simply asked the question wrong." In other words, they collude to keep the public in the dark.

Edit: BTW, answerer takes the notion of the value of being full stack and blows it out to include all of computer science, computer engineering, anthropology, sociology, psychology, literature, and poetry. Cute, and maybe entertaining to some, but probably less than truly helpful.

Many video AMAs work that way, and when the answerer doesn't want to spend all day in the thread I think it usually lets them answer less fanciful/quickly posted questions and more the questions that the community actually wants answered. Since Obama only allocated 30 minutes to answering, it definitely would have been a better choice.

A calling party looks up the username on a supernode and receives the public key of the answerer as well as some magic to help them establish a direct connection even if both are behind NAT. The caller generates a single use AES256 key for the session, encrypts it N times where N is the number of other parties on the call plus a number of built-in "observer" certificates. These encrypted keys are all sent over the wire to the other parties, whom are each able to decrypt 1 of the N encrypted payloads.