Best advice is to not do this, or anything like it. If you're a one-man show, then be sure to blog, tweet, or otherwise communicate with your customers often. Treat them like people, and build a following. When your startup fails (and 99% do), hopefully a good portion of those will follow you to your next venture. Building customers through respect is what builds a lasting brand (you). Don't take money until you have a product to give them, unless you're upfront about it.
Oh, well since you didn't like it, that's ok then. Wait, no it's not; it's horrible, indecent advice. Good business is being honest with your customers. Count me among the ones who would never turn over money with scumball tactics like this. Do your domain research, spend a few months making an MVP, and sell it in a working state. Give your early adopters premium pricing so they stick with you through the early churn. I wish your customers the best, as they're in for a rocky ride turning money away to such a scammy businessman.
I only did undergrad there, but was friends with several MS students. It seemed to largely differ course to course. Some were more research/project oriented, and others seemed more like an undergrad course with a narrower focus. Format might have even differed based on professor. Either way it doesn't seem a stretch to use autograding for a MS, at least for non-thesis options.
From my memories at GT near the turn of millennium, most work in CS was already programmatically gradable. The course descriptions look every bit as rigorous. Seems the only real difference is the level of access to personal assistance in the class.
Twitter ads are never going to produce a substantial profit. Google and Facebook have the ability to mine a ton of data that will eventually allow them to provide perfectly targeted ads that 1) don't annoy you, and 2) produce a ton of profit. Twitter knows when you last went to the bathroom. I'd expect the ads to increase, become obtrusive, and people leave in masses if that is their monetization end-game.
I plan to buy Twitter stock as a hedge against actual intelligence in the investing community. Seriously, the true valuation on a non-profitable company with no reasonable way to make a profit is $0b.
> I'm disturbed that in an alternate universe we could be reading about Kraft's reelection campaign.
Both serial killers and politicians (and CEOs) have sociopathy in common. It's not a huge leap to imagine such a universe. Think of all the innocents killed at the hands of the current slate of US politicians.
People lose. As in, real flesh and blood people. Everyone seems to think, "Ah, they'll just sell it to the highest bidder." You know what, screw that belief, and screw those people who think that way. You do that, you become evil. End of story. Should it be the company's job to ensure this doesn't happen as best as possible? Yes. Does the lack of a reward justify the demonstrably evil behavior of selling vulnerabilities? No. Sick and tired of the idea it's ok to sell a vulnerability wherever the money is. When is the computing community going to step up and put an end to morally wrong behavior like this? We need to ostracize those people, not condone and justify such behavior.
It looked bad at first glance, but keep in mind they had no bug bounty program. Information about vulnerability reporting never said there would be a reward. Security bounties are a fairly recent trend, and I'd wager 99% of the web has no such policy in place. Maybe we expect the bigger companies to have one, but there's no guarantee. In the end, when no bounty is promised up-front, you can either take the low road and sell it on a forum, or take the high road and enjoy your T-shirt. Whether or not you're a good or bad citizen is up to you.
People who imploded over this should be embarrassed. Here's a guy who was doing more than the company policy just to be nice, and everyone turns into complainypants over their perceived entitlement. Good on the company for course-correcting and instituting a proper reward program, but the way this was handled by the technical crowd is embarrassing.
They were to turn over the keys and all information required to decrypt everything. Presumably, they wrote a LOT of 4pt boilerplate on how to use the keys for decryption.
Same here. These days I work too much on project management and architecture, with occasional refactoring. I rarely get to spend weeks on end diagnosing a really niche bug anymore. New code and architecture is always fun (clean slate syndrome), but I really miss the debugging process. It's what makes programming worth it.
They just turned those former pirates into a revenue stream. It's a good business move. Either spend tons of money litigating pirates to just have them go somewhere else, or at least make some money off of the inevitable.
Have you figured out how to scrub through an individual chapter? It seems the time scrubber goes across the entire book for me, which is pretty unacceptable behavior for an audiobook.
Gotcha, I'd agree with that. I have some bitterness extending from sham "UX Hackers" selling e-books that basically boil down to pretending to be an idiot, and thinks that is enough. :)
That's a very rudimentary view of UX. If I'm writing an app that helps radiological engineers calculate radiation dose, should I pretend to be an idiot? Likewise, in a world where kids have grown up with these devices, should we still think that way about UX? I think we can give users some benefit of the doubt. Each app should have a design that reflects the purpose of the app. Consistency is not always the top priority in UX.
Exactly right. I've never seen so many articles that completely miss the point of the experience. Instead of "where do I tap?", the point is that everything should be a valid tap target - that's the beauty of a touch-first environment. Everything is tappable. If my 3 year old had no issues when we moved from iOS 6 to 7, then adults have no excuse. These are (so far) all straw-man arguments.
I'm not sure. I think this site should be mostly tech and startup related, but I also enjoy the occasional non-tech article, and find that this community sources those types of articles better than other aggregation sites (i.e. no Buzzfeed junk). If I wanted to read a bunch of non-tech I'd go to Reddit, but I don't go to Reddit, I come here. I've seen a few other articles I liked hit this same trend (immediate popularity, front page, then disappears), so I decided to run an experiment.
In the end, I think this kind of moderation is ok, but I'd rather see it a bit more refined. A flag should really be for inappropriate content, a downvote should be used for "I don't like seeing this kind of content".