I think this approach also works very well for post-alpha projects. Often enough, the secret to satisfaction is patience combined with low expectations.
I understand your point and have sympathy for it, but I just can't go along with it. I know it's just the grumpy old man in me, but I still prefer to push back (gently, I hope) against the misuse of words and phrases.
One of the great delights of the internet is having NYT op-eds followed up, almost immediately, by critical blog posts written by knowledgeable writers. I still remember a decade or two ago, when arguments like this were conducted through magazines and each volley would take weeks to be published and mailed out. I'm not necessarily commenting on the meat of the argument, but certainly this much-sped-up rhythm of debate is a win for us when quality writers and thinkers are involved in the discussion.
When I decided to focus on the things that matter in my life, I got much busier. Sure, I have fewer items on my todo list now, but each one of them takes a lot of time, energy, and focus to get right. When I was less focused, I had plenty of free time because I didn't realize how much work it takes to get the most important stuff right.
The last time they had a sale like this I had to call them twice before I could download my ebooks. They don't seem very well prepared for the volume they get for sales.
It is, in some ways, a small things, but I'm really looking forward to the integrated Kindle book store in the android app. As far as I understand, Apple wants a 30% cut of in-app purchases, which caused Amazon to not add an integrated book store in the iPhone Kindle app. I think little things like this can add up to a lot of convenience over time and over many apps.
I have to completely disagree. Amazon.com is a store, not wikipedia, and price is a hugely important factor. If folks are unhappy with the pricing on amazon.com, then amazon.com is exactly the right place for it. In particular, if folks are unhappy with the pricing of a particular item, then the review section for that item is precisely the right place to complain. They are reviewing a product that is being offered for sale. Price is crucial and relevant.
Almost certainly, the best thing any person can do is work to lessen their own cravings for sensationalist news entertainment. Then, let your circle (at this point only containing yourself) grow to include others, beginning with the people closest to you (in one sense or another, as in you might start with friends, family, or maybe even start by telling us about how you lessened your cravings here on HN).
You probably meant something larger scale in your original questions, or maybe something more tactically concrete. Hopefully, starting by getting the scale of the problem under control might help us get the tactics right, and then expand the scale.
From the screenshot (of dubious authenticity) I saw on a different website, it seemed like the automatic updates was a setting that the user controls per app. There are still some problems with automatic updates (as there also are with non-automatic updates), but at least the control is relatively fine-grained.
The most important similarity between a musician with a major label contract and an a venture-backed entrepreneur is that both people have sold a piece of the business. "If all goes well", both people will be making money for someone else.
Never forget, MTV and Techcrunch are both the same kind of lie.
This iPhone incident has been a low point for Apple blogging. I think that when an Apple blog is teaching us why stealing is wrong, or publishing California laws, then I think that Apple blog is doing something other than Apple blogging.
This brings to mind something pg wrote about New York:
"New York tells you, above all: you should make more money. There are other messages too, of course. You should be hipper. You should be better looking. But the clearest message is that you should be richer."
- http://www.paulgraham.com/cities.html
Of course, founders can make plenty of money. But New York does seem to be unusual in how much it lionizes people who already have lots of money (or least, people who allocate lots of it). I don't expect to see the phenomenon discussed in this blog post change anytime soon.
I think his point was about bad incentives, not necessarily bad people. As Cato is neither a regulator, not a regulatee, I'm not sure why his employment there would make any difference.
"In one breath the author complains that the failure of the market is due to lax regulation and corrupt officials, while in the next he calls for further deregulation and less government oversight."
I think the point was that regulation and officials provide false comfort, as they will be captured by the interests they regulate. Removing those regulations and officials will at least remove the false security the "lax regulation and corrupt officials" provided.