ChrisDutrow

I just talked to Greg, he said something that might help would be to add "FWD: " before the forwarded message. Or possibly "Forwarded from XXX.XXX.XXXX: "

I can confirm that my system did forward the message without any modifications at all. (my employee knew what it was because he knows all text messages from that number are forwards)

Thats right, we're in the US

Ok I just e-mailed you, thanks so much

I kind of agree with this. I need to have that point-of-contact, so that if something blows up, they don't want to lose their commission, so they email the right person in the company to get it fixed.

The thing is, I actually had this when I first started with them. They were so small at the time, that I had one of the founders on the phone once and he told me all about how he studied cloud computing at MIT. But this was over 10 years ago. After that, they had phone support for a long time.

Last few years they changed over to this way where there is no path to resolving a problem like this, which should be easy to solve, in an appropriate amount of time.

Yes or they could have just blocked the messaged before it hit my system. They are the ones that originally allowed the message to get to me. Then when I process it, they suspend my account.

Yes, I will do something like this. However it doesn't alleviate the overarching concern that they are behaving in a way that treats my business very recklessly.

This is not quite right. We aren't sending the messaged from the original number. As far as I know, that isn't really possible because we don't "own" that original number.

The business case of relaying inbound text messages to an employee's phone number should be a very common one and should not warrant an account suspension.

I just checked out google vision and it is the only online demo I was able to get to read handwritten text. Had maybe a 60-70% success rate for poorly written handwriting. And more like 85%-90% with good handwriting. Really cool.

What kind of negative experiences have you had with recruiters? I don't know much about them...

What does tightening the funnel mean in this context?

The user base is people who own small mobile auto detailing businesses. So pretty specific. I imagine most of these companies will be way too small to have an IT department restricting their ability to install Chrome.

That's a really good idea since it does require sign up. Thank so much for this suggestion.

I was actually planning on calling them on the phone if they put their phone number in the sign up form. Its a boutique sort of app. Should end up having a low-ish number of users with high-ish revenue per user.

I would be happy to pay a little to get free users. Once I felt ready, I was planning on just calling mobile auto detailing businesses up and trying to get them to let me demo to application. I own a mobile auto detailing business myself, so I hope maybe I won't get blown off as much as normal because of the common ground.

The brushing capability took me 3 days to implement. I did it in sort of a "manic" phase of productivity. I like the way it looks, but I feel like I burnt too many cognitive resources on something that should have just been implemented in a "good enough" way. Not sure if that tidbit is interesting?...

All your points are great, just offering these counter points for the sake of discussion:

Firefox was slower with the UX animations. It seemed to skip frames/uglify the animations. Though I did not have a lot of problems with bugs that crippled the application. Internet Explorer was mainly the browser with crippling bugs that were sometimes hard to fix.

The counter point to the "carrot" of more users from Firefox is that I'm working with limited resources. I feel like if I hired another developer, one of the things they could start out on is cross-browser compatibility. But right now, in order to get those firefox users, I have to sacrifice somewhere else. I don't think not supporting all major browsers is a good long term strategy, but I think it might be a necessary early-stage strategy.

I watched the second video first (no weird stuff in that video that I noticed, just a demo of the invention). My impression was that it was one of the most innovative and unique things I'd seen in a while, especially from a UX perspective.

Then I read the comments and watched the second video. I get the backlash over the misogyny. But I wonder if focusing too much on that is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Without knowing anything else, the scenario that popped into my head was a team of creators who are really good at a few things, but at the expense of being completely incompetent at marketing, social issues, website design, being classy in general...

But should this invention be squashed for their mistakes or lauded for its brilliance?

Sometimes I think really innovative and brilliant things come from people who have ultra-focused to the point of being very good at a few things and sucking at many other things... And the sucking at many other things is the cost that must be paid.

Compared to the cost of extra developer time, this seems like a reasonable cost solution.

> I think we can see such statements as examples of the Noble Savage sentiment

I think considering all primitive societies to be "noble" is probably not accurate. Probably most of them had serious issues.

My impression (which is just from reading various material over the years) of these small tribe-size communities is that some of them evolve very advanced social structures - where there is low violence and high compassion. The emotional side of me "likes" this. But also my intellect suggests that more harmonious/supportive communities are probably stronger and more productive.

Other communities diverge into states that I consider to be "sick" perversions of what communities "should" be like. Things like honor killings and it being ok to sell your nieces and nephews into the slave trade are things I would personally consider sick and I hope they are sub optimal from a survival perspective.

If I had to guess, I'd say a big reason she considered them socially advanced was the matriarchal component. I speculate that its hard to develop a matriarchal society because men tend to be more aggressive and physically stronger. However, my impression is that matriarchal societies tend to be less violent and more harmonious. It could be argued that less violence and more harmony are components of a more optimal social structure.

> The tribes might be primitive in their technological achievements but socially they are far ahead of us”.

Based on my understanding of "reality", I would assume this would tend to be the case. From what I understand, rapid technological advancement tends to wreak havoc on social structures.

These people are wise to attack outsiders, especially given their early contact with westerners in 1880. There are all kinds of ways outside contact is likely to bring despair to their community.

It also sounds like they have a matriarchal society which is (of course debatably) a more stable, more advanced social structure.

>Somehow doing something to "help him along" is killing him, but withholding food and water is not. :(

I am also confused by this. If a person is unable to feed themselves, and you are responsible for caring for them, it is murder to not give them food and water. Imagine if doctors did this on purpose to a patient who was not terminal.

I don't see the difference between starving someone to death and giving them a morphine overdose except that one is very nasty and one is not.

Cool Edit 96

As someone who's done a lot of hiring and firing, the part that stands out most to me is not the sexual harassment part, but the fact that he was just hired and already is causing problems.

Normal people tend to be cautious and respectful at first. By immidiately jumping in and pushing boundaries, this person is demonstrating that he doesn't care about your company, he doesn't care what you or anybody there thinks about him, and he doesn't care if he breaks things and gets fired.

I would fire him as soon as I could without the lawyers getting up in arms. People like this tend to be very destructive. The smart ones will wreak havoc in your organization for years before you figure it out.

That's fascinating. That first Quora answer goes into it really well.

What are some of the biological reasons humans have higher death rates in childbirth?

What was his motive for lying?

I actually do use an el already in the DOM. To be honest, I do it that way because the code looks cleaner and is easier for me to understand that way, I didn't know it was faster. The only caveat I've found with that way is that if you remove a view and add an identical one, the events from the old view still get fired. For views where that happens, I actually use a custom extension of the original views that has a special destroy method that gets called which unbinds events and stuff.

When first learning backbone, I played around with the router, but I don't use it at all now. It was pretty hard for me to use and didn't seem to have much of a point. I suspect for many use cases, if you really need the url path to change, reloading the page from the server would be fine. But of course my perspective comes from only the use cases that I've worked with.

I actually mostly don't use backbone to organize the data, mostly only to display the data. The demo you looked at actually has little mini database implemented in the background using arrays and objects (used as maps). I mostly use collections for things that go right on the screen. I also (mostly) don't use backbone's ability to sync data with the server. I have a module that uses Jquery's Ajax for this instead. The reason I don't use backbone for this is that I found their way of doing it breaks down with more complex relationships within the data.

I mainly use backbone as a utility for message passing (update a model and one place, and messages are passed so everywhere else it is displayed updates also). And for organization: the views, pieces of the DOM within a view, and events.

Also, I use Marionette.js, not pure Backbone.js

...I'm not trying to say my way of doing things is the right way, just relating what I do and why for discussions sake.

Oh, and I looked at your demo. That is really cool. That's really fast for so many records.

This is really cool.

Has anyone found where you can buy and/or listen to the whole song?

I feel this way about backbone as well. Before using backbone, I wrote complex user interfaces in Javascript/JQuery. They were a mess.

Backbone allowed me to write cleaner code without forcing me to do anything. I still use backbone today. The code tends to be very verbose, but the trade-off is that it is not heavy handed. I never have to "hack" around backbone, it just gets out of my way when I want it to.

This fits my personal preferences, I prefer simple, verbose code. I also tend to prefer lower-level to high level. For example, I don't like ORMs. For me, it is easier to explicitly express how I want the data to be indexed and move in and out of a database as opposed to have an ORM manage it for me... because if it doesn't do it right, its very difficult for me to learn how to get the ORM to do what I want it to do. I also prefer more keystrokes and fewer "things to have to know about" to fewer keystrokes with many things going on behind the scenes that I cannot see. I think I may be in the minority in this respect?

I understand that there may be better frameworks now, but I feel I need to commit to something and stick with it, I think the cost of re-writing things all the time is too high. I think its faster in the long run to use an old framework that's 50% slower than switch to a better framework every two years.

For reference, this is the main project I use backbone on: https://demo.enterprisejazz.com/

My sister and her husband had two dogs for a long time, when one of them died, the other got very depressed. So they put her on anti-depressants for a few months after that.

This is something that in hindsight would seem to be obvious, but really isn't. If you've spent almost your whole life weighing 100+ pounds, it's really hard to imagine the rapid heat loss that is experienced if you weight 1/10th of that. This applies to pets, but also babies and small children.

I'm embarrassed that I never thought of this, but now that you mention it, it seems obvious there would be subsets of emotions other animals feel that we do not. Even if our capacity for emotion is greater, it seems unlikely that the VENN diagram of our emotions and their emotions would show their circle completely contained within ours.

One thing I do think about a lot is what mental capacity other animals have that we do not. An elephant's brain is way bigger than ours. Considering that other large animals have proportionately smaller brains, it must be that size for a reason. I wonder what mental things are easy for an elephant but hard for a human?

Yeah, I can't see how that could possibly be true. Kings would have had access to huge amounts of man power. People to build their castles and supply them with food.

I suppose you could argue that the homeless person might have better access to healthcare. But I still think the author's statement is very false.