Gorbzel

The problem is that Ari thought that Alma's humble origins mattered to people coming in for a good meal such that they would somehow obscure some pretty big problems with the restaurant. I can't imagine ever excusing a product's flaws simply because the founder had difficulty raising capital, and no other restaurant has these deluded expectations.

In this case, the founder didn't listen to his customers — instead, he chose to rest on his MVP laurels and never move beyond. We appreciate that you were able to open the place on $50k, but now that you're more well known, could you possibly stop ripping people off with Eastern European wine that didn't pair with any of your tasting menu? I understand that your approach required an "us vs the world" mentality, but perhaps you could improve service that was spotty bordering on rude. When your customers dislike the tasting menu because it lacks many standout flavors beyond the snacks that initially made you famous, it's advisable to step up your dishes, not simply change to an ala carte menu and start blaming the Yelpers.

From what I can tell, he raised his own funds to start Alma. Before that, he was fired from an internship at a James Beard award winning restaurant, worked unpaid at a community garden and few other places until he just up and left. The article notes that he's never appeared on any of the cooking shows or anything, and that he was about to have to start working in someone else's place before the permanent real estate "opened up" in Downtown LA (which makes no sense if you've been to the neighborhood).

Point being, it's easy to sound blasé about giving a fuck what other people think of your cooking, but it masks the fact that this guy has never had to answer to anyone about some very obvious flaws in his cooking and business skills. Instead, blame your customers and their "shit talking."

Good riddance.

What people are implicating is their strategy. As others have mentioned, they don't seem to lead entry into any space, and therefore their presence in the space is constantly in the vein of catching up. Thus far, the only clear reason I've ever heard them mention is the same "open web standards" argument. Obviously this approach is valid, but with their browser success they should know better than anyone that you cannot overtake Goliath with open standards if no one is using your product.

Lo and behold, they've apparently shown a product at MozCon that Google and Apple have already bet a ton on and released compelling consumer offerings for. Regardless of how impressive the APIs and UI may be, history repeating itself here.

In this case, buried among some semi-coherent arguments, we reach the point where one should ask "Was this product compelling compared to other solutions that tackle this pain point?"

Obviously not, but don't expect the company to smell the coffee. In their opinion, their "few competitor apps" didn't matter, but they lasted longer, so they probably did. Oh, but of course "they weren’t doing it as well."

Take a look at the comments rolling in here, some of which note that the product didn't seem like compelling standalone option but that would have done well as part of a larger solution. Others inquire why certain features were left out that would have adequately addressed the entire pain point, but left the product feeling incomplete otherwise.

Of course, these potential customers were all wrong, because "other apps felt heavy and complicated."

Founders considering mobile, don't make the same mistake(s) this company is making. Rather than write some clickbait Mediun post after the fact, remember that a great UIX, onboarding and maybe even a mascot might be necessary for mobile success, but they definitely aren't sufficient. Nothing beats product market fit, and if a mobile app is necessary for said fit, you better not only bother with mobile, you should embrace it...objectively.

As for the other half, it seems as if you are implying ESPN has done something wrong aggressively pricing their content and live programming offerings...which is also wrong. For some reason cord cutters believe that disparaging content providers they don't personally enjoy is productive, but these are the parties with both a) the leverage and b) the most to lose by challenging cable companies and other traditional media gatekeepers. They deserve consumer recognition for their efforts, and despite having problems like any other monolith, I support the Worldwide Leader.

What they're pitching for data storage and consulting is just as beneficial for development. Thus, if they're saying one thing and then doing all their dev work in India, that sucks.

Let's recap: Advertiser sells ads, doesn't run ads on App Store submitted version, complains that they had to run ads so Apple could verify what the ads are,...?

I'd rather Apple put this app through its places 100x through rather than let a nefarious ad machine through.

• From a user's perspective, it's not as if some aesthetic improvements are mutually exclusive with the overall goals stated in the article. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It'd be nice if the website had the same premium feel and attention to detail that the actual food and front of house do. It's a bit jarring to spend $3k+ on season tickets on a website with a minimum viable design.

• While I admittedly lack the insight of a restaurant operator, it seems he's stagnated frontend-wise on simply "anything but IE." While that makes the geek in me chuckle, it seems to dismiss the benefits that come from having an actual strategy focusing on the way that mobile devices could be integrated. Just because the ticket biz model is better than those focused on leasing hardware doesn't mean that a FOH person couldn't be armed with a tablet to access the webapp or that a native app for customers and restaurants doesn't make sense.

Anyways, very interesting, and while I didn't think it was possible to be more excited for Modern China, I'm now looking forward to potentially keeping an eye out for how the restaurant interacts with the software during service.

It's not like Apple's been a major engineering company in the center of some meaningful tech discussions (RFCs, open source projects sometimes, etc) for 30+ years. Not respecting other people's technical decisions really just hampers/hinders good collaborative work and conversation (especially about security) getting done.

While I don't know about the OP open source project, as a iOS dev I know quite a bit about using Testflight. The feudal analogy really breaks down there; this has nothing to do with ruling the app world, it's a technical decision based on code-signing and app distribution. Apple came up with the system that does that, and TestFlight made it about 100x better, so Apple acquired them (and are now working on making the 1st party system infinitely better).

Historically, Apple has most all their projects in-house in order to focus solely on the product and the way technology integrates. So when they close on an acquisition, it's very common for Cupertino to EOL other efforts at make the new hires and technology part of the company. When that's your approach to design, there's very little reason to support open source libraries and other projects other than your own.

There are legitimate discussions to be had about what Jobs actually did vs the perception people have of him. But there's no doubting that the former category includes a number of meaningful and industry-defining accomplishments.

Unfortunately, those like you who aren't done constantly arguing an equally biased anti-Jobs/Apple view seem to think that rehashing the truly dick part of who Steve could be discounts what he did (often by citing other folks involved / inspired, as if it doesn't take a village to build a revolutionary product). I'm not really sure I'd ever miss interacting with such an ideologue.

I significantly disagree with Hiibel, but alas, SCOTUS says that you have to give your name.

First off, I never said that there isn't a problem with the way the police treated OP. In fact, I'm encouraging him to sue both the police department and the officers personally for the way they treated him, which was clearly unacceptable behavior. Translation: I want to see him get justice.

But I also am able to see nuance in a situation, which clearly you're lacking. He might be a victim, but he's not blameless, insofar as: • Refused to pipe down and leave the accident when ordered to by a police officer. • Continued to instigate police officers who were securing the scene. • Yelled like a crazy person while in a holding cell.

or, as I said in the parent comment: OP COMPLETELY FAILED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND AVOID AN ENCOUNTER WITH THE POLICE.

His behavior was unacceptable, and holding him to account for that as someone who enjoys their constitutional rights and insists upon defending them in NO WAY MAKES ME A POLICE APOLOGIST. Police aren't the only one who can trample upon rights, those who fail to understand or abuse them are culpable as well. The fact you don't understand that makes me wonder if our free society held together by liberty and a respect for the rule of law has any chance any more, yet I'll remain an optimist.

Um, no, you can leave it to an actual court of law by finding a good attorney and filing a civil complaint. But until you find competent representation, here's a piece of advice: for the love of god and your own well-being, learn to STFU.

The story makes it clear OP has no idea when to stop talking and observe his surroundings, even to his own detriment. Instead, he acted (and wrote) in such a way where he's constantly assuming the role of a victim and then being shocked when people treat him as such.

Remember folks, you have the right to remain silent in any interaction with authorities (not just the police, pretty much only a judge can compel you to speak), and your failure to do so only ever leads to a world of hurt.

Oh wait, there is, it's called Trademark Law! As such, it's getting really old seeing a bunch of angry parties writing open letters and rants on social media trying to claim they're the morally superior party for [BS REASON HERE]. None of that matters. What matters are statutorily defined factors such as likelihood of confusion, levels of distinctiveness, date of first use in commerce, etc that set forth who gets to use a mark as a matter of law.

As such, it really doesn't matter what these MiSoft people tried to do in iTunes Connect, as Apple is/should not be the gatekeeper when it comes to naming disputes (see the handful of stories posted by app devs who are mad about takedowns). Nor does it matter if FiftyThree is particularly pouty that Facebook came in and tried to use their brand, because their original mark application really only has to do with stylus based drawing apps.

tl;dr: Nothing to see here until the parties in question actually lawyer up and assert infringement.

Honestly, since all that really matters to Uber is $$ and being forced to deal with the law (and even then only barely), Gett should just sue them. It's clearly illegal (putting aside differences between NY/CA law) and it proves the point in a way they'll be forced to notice.

Your still posted article continues to include a passage where you call the PR person in question the "saddest booth babe in the world" So Gruber wasn't wrong, you did exactly what he claimed and you are now lying about your mistake.

It's so obvious that you were forced to add a ridiculous disclaimer where you continue to avoid any responsibility and instead assert that your original claim was "impressionistic". I posit that there's a different word for what you're doing: bullshit.

This is your modus operandi: You construct a compelling narrative first and then fits the facts to said narrative, truth be damned. Your original story is often based around very real problems in the tech community, so when you inevitably get called out for your falsities, you then attempt to shift all attention to the problem and blame those who have dared to point out your inaccuracies. Nowhere do you ever address your own terribly sad methods, instead, you continue to build a career based on being "controversial", never bothering to realize that your scorched earth approach harms the groups you write about and the tech community as a whole.

Receiving too much credit? Are you asinine? Perhaps you don't remember the days before the Apple Store. Purchasing a computer involved going to retail outlets like CompUSA or Circuit City that cared more about their bottom line then paying attention to the dilapidated surroundings. If you did choose to go to a slightly nicer place like Best Buy, good luck buying a computer that didn't come with tons of manufacturer adware that the "GEEKS" felt the need to either clean for a ridiculous fee or install more on top of. Or my favorite, you could go to Gateway Country, and get the worst of retail annoyances and overpricing with the annoyance of waiting provided by online shopping!

In fact, the misguided nature of your post is pretty well evident if you simply replace all instances of [Apple Store] with [holiday shopping]. It's difficult to get into most any shopping center retailer, especially those that have a single location in a major metro area.

Oh, and how dare any retail store allow potential customers to spend time getting familiar with the devices they're about to drop hundreds of dollars on. Nope, some self-entitled guy on HN thinks your game is asinine, yet lacks the basic social cues to politely ask to see a device or god-forbid queue for it, so curse Apple for not enforcing limits. (For the record, they do enforce limits in highly specific circumstances where people are actually abusing the privilege, but I'd like to see you try to deal with angry shoppers during the holidays).

And yet, when Apple staffers do approach you, to ya know, maybe inquire if you'd like to check out a device yourself, they're berating you.

Which is the whole point: Apple gets credit in retail because they do the best job of providing a great buying experience to customers in an industry that is inherently difficult, whereas MS, Samsung, Google and others just seem to copy poorly. Since your own insecurities seem to be the problem, just neckbeard it up for some online shopping at home, which is the most pleasant experience anyway.

An example, lest I just be picking on you. Other commenters have already reasonably tackled many of the other assertions, so let's go with this one: "Developers have gotten really clever about creating fake portfolios"

First of all, how do you even know this? Did you work with someone who did this? Have you discussed this w/other entrepreneurs who experienced this? Did you hear a rumor somewhere? No one's demanding hard data, but it's fair to expect you to back up your assertion WITH AT LEAST SOMETHING. Even if you had a personal story, you'd have experience that others could use to detect red flags.

Second, what did they do? Get fake apps uploaded to the App Store? Put together screenshots that weren't theirs? What is this super clever scheme that you've discovered? I assume it's not that clever, if it exists at all, but there's no way to tell.

Finally, your lack of trust just creates a hostile environment around what might otherwise be some good advice. I'm a freelance dev and I LOVE SAMPLE PROJECT "INTERVIEWS". There's a number of reasons why they are significantly better than just guessing based on a resume and some technical questions (especially w/non-technical startup founders), but I expect to go into first time projects with a sense of optimism and mutual respect, not mindless fear.

Your article starts out noting that it's best to find a technical co-founder, and I couldn't agree more. Devs often understand what is going on in the mind of other devs, but also represent the needs of their company, so it's a good balance. Way better than relying on overseas talent using this linkbait as a guide. Ugh.

As with many questions of openness, it's a question of pragmatism. It might be fair if some Kickstarted device did this or something, but this is Google's flagship tablet. Google uses the "Open" moniker as a marketing tool to both sell the devices to like-minded supporters as well as to bash others (Apple, MS, etc) pretty much whenever they can, as do many of their affiliates/partners. As such, it's completely fair to hold them accountable when that ends up not being the case.

Unfortunately, it seems as if there is some of that going on here. Lost among all the valid criticism of Lodsys in the linked article is the actual motion to dismiss their claim. Rather than take the opportunity to challenge Lodsys' patent on validity grounds, which is what would really be needed to push meaningful reform, the author's attorney has chosen to pursue relatively unimportant civil procedure and state law defenses that seem a) unlikely to succeed (although IANYL) and that b) will do absolutely nothing to affect the state of patent law in this country either way.

The defendant here isn't paying the "troll toll" because he doesn't want to cough up that money and believes he's in the right. Many of us probably agree with that belief. But it seems a bit disingenuous to write an article championing patent reform yet explicitly avoid the opportunity to take a real stand on that issue all while asking others to put their skin in the game to fight the good fight. Perhaps my time in IP law has left me cynical, so I've asked the author in his comments to address this and I'll update this post if he responds...

First of all, the section that attempts to discount this random $0.61 as a supposed "fee" is discussing whether or not AT&T will provide notice, not whether it constitutes a price increase.

Second, at best, that sentence would mostly seem to be discussing only that AT&T doesn't consider this fee increase material, but that's not necessarily conclusive.

Fact of the matter is that this is an increase in the amount due to the provider for the Service, so without the surcharge directly relating to some change in circumstances regarding the contract, I'd consider 1.3 applicable. AT&T's fees page basically tries to couch the Administrative Fee language in terms of some sort of mandatory obligation that AT&T is paying on behalf of its customers, but it's farcical: AT&T has to pay rents to operate its cell sites, that's the whole reason consumers contracted for the Services in the first place.

I'd oddly consider all of this, as I consider this a ploy to increase their revenue and see who notices plain and simple (as opposed to other contract changes they pull sometimes that might be arguably necessary) but given that I'm still relying on the good ol' 2007 unlimited iPhone contract, I'm hesitant to risk them agreeing with me and terminating the contract so they can modify the unlimited access.

You haven't seen the movie, so you have no first-hand knowledge of the relevant issues the co-director is trying to address. Specifically, the issue is not feminine identity as a whole (or the fact that Disney has 8-9 other princesses who have that demographic pretty much sewn up) but that one of the biggest themes in Brave is that Merida doesn't want to be the stereotypical princess that society says she has to be; she can and does choose to be the tomboy archer who goes her own way.

BUT NO! Intelligent discussion and on-topic conversation be damned, you have something to say about your five sisters and how they like to bake in sparkly clothes while you like to be manly! GREAT! GO DO THAT! NO ONE IS SAYING YOU CAN'T.

But that's not good enough. Instead, you create a contrarian strawman that has nothing to do with the OP but that riles up the internet masses who want to defend personal visions of gender identity which have never been in question. If internet comments mattered, I'd call your behavior shameful, but that'd be overselling it. Instead I'll just point out that you have no room to speak about intellectual communities if this is your modus operandi.