Also Transparent Textures (https://www.transparenttextures.com/) – disclaimer, I made it — which is basically Subtle Patterns with a colorwheel that allows the backgrounds to be any color.
865 karma · joined July 25, 2011
1. "Great! Our products are so well-made, stable and backwards-compatible that users do not have to upgrade."
2. "This is terrible. We have failed so thoroughly to innovate that people are content with using five-year-old technology."
It's not like Apple is unaware of virtues of #1, but as a company they are clearly in bucket #2. In five years, if 600MM users are still using the iPhone 6, I'm certain they would also consider that "very sad". I don't think Schiller and the exec team have blinders, they are just holding the rest of the PC industry to the same standard to which they hold themselves.
Granted, this interpretation would make for a boring thinkpiece and would not get me to #1 on HN.
I was talking about this with a friend, and she said if that was sufficiently transformative for fair use to apply, then one could simply write notes in the margin of a book, call it art, and claim ownership of the book's contents.
Obviously it wouldn't outright prevent negotiating - you could still ask for $15k above what they listed in the job posting - but it WOULD help candidates navigate some of the smaller moments during the interview process that can unknowingly undermine their negotiating position (e.g. "How much did you make in your last role?").
This circumstance, in which Apple essentially pre-installs the service on every device and subsequently offers it for free, isn't so different from 1990s Microsoft bundling IE with Windows to undercut Netscape.
- Different pricing. Apps can be anywhere from $1 to $500, while songs typically hover around $0.99. The wide variance in app pricing makes a subscription model challenging to satisfy all users and developers.
- Different markets. When you make an app, you're tying it to be used on a specific platform. It is additional work to make it cross-platform. That alone is limiting for an apps' market, and in the case of iOS, the platform's owner can impose additional limits. Music is open-ish in the sense that you can make music once and release it in a way that it's playable, essentially, everywhere.
- Different revenue streams. Music is a digital good like apps, but it's also a physical good (CDs, records) and most importantly it's a service (live performances). It's possible to have additional revenue streams with apps, but it's not as common as it is with music. If Apple spontaneously created an app subscription model and your app was iOS only, you would suddenly be very locked into that business model, whereas with music you will always have additional options.
> almost certainly
From the Wikipedia article you linked:
- "[The NFL] found no evidence to substantiate the Super Bowl XXXVI allegations or any other transgressions beside those the NFL had already penalized the Patriots for."
- "NFL investigators found practical limitations to the allegation; the Patriots' video equipment that was set up the day before the game had neither battery packs nor a nearby power supply in order to run." In other words, filming the walkthrough was not plausible on a technical level.
- "The Boston Herald [who initially published the story based on an anonymous source] published an apology to the Patriots and their fans for publishing the February 2, 2008, story ... alleging the Patriots had taped the Rams' walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. ... They wrote, they should not have published the story, which they deemed to be false."
I'll be honest, I didn't even know about this aspect of Spygate before reading the Wikipedia article, but it seems like the allegation was investigated, the NFL found nothing, and the Boston Herald apologized for a story that was seemingly without merit. Where are you getting "almost certainly"?
I'm just taking issue with the guy calling it "outright spying" which is a pretty exaggerated characterization when you're filming what a coach is doing in front of 50,000 people. If that's spying, then I spy on NFL games pretty regularly.
The Patriots filmed the Jets' sideline during an actual NFL game that was happening in front of like 80,000 people. It isn't even illegal to film opposing coaches on their sideline, you just can't do it from your own sideline[1]. That's what Spygate was. Is that really spying? Is it outright spying?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_vide...
A double-sided screen might seem like overkill, but it's the only solution I can think of that solves all my personal laptop/tablet-hybrid annoyances, namely (a) kickstand, (b) they often come in two parts, tablet + keyboard, and (c) if you can fold the keyboard over, now the bottom of your tablet is a keyboard.
Asus made a clunky version[1] of this form-factor, but I'm waiting for someone to do it right.
There simply is not a video-based standard that implies "short, silent, autoplayed, looped video" in the way that animated GIFs do. There are ways to approximate the behavior in HTML, but none of them are perfect in the way GIFs are.
I have no idea how Buzzfeed works internally, so I don't know if their Exec. Chairman's connections could influence their reporting, but I feel like it's a significant enough conflict that it should have been disclosed.
[1]: http://www.buzzfeed.com/about/team
[2]: http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/side-cr
a. You are sighing because you believe the study to be meaningless due to its sample size.
b. You are sighing because the writer needlessly undermines the results of a completely legitimate poll (+/- 3.3% margin of error for the subgroups).
c. You are sighing about poor comedy ("if you dare!").
The point of the article is that low-income kids, despite being intelligent and doing well among their peers, have a hard time transitioning to college. Universities could wash their hands of the problem and just reject the poor kids and send them to two-year universities like you suggest, but they’re trying to solve the inequality without further exacerbating our income differences.
-- Removing the check-in feature from the Foursquare app and putting into a separate app called Swarm.
-- Making Foursquare 100% about exploring and recommendations, a la Yelp.
This seems like a bizarre move. Unless I'm mistaken, all of their data comes FROM check-ins. People write tips, answer questions ("Is this place good for kids?") and generally contribute their info to the web of data that Foursquare uses to intelligently recommend venues. Couple that with the network effect of having access to friends' check-ins, which to me is probably the strongest signal of a particular venue's quality.
So all that being said, it seems like receiving a high volume of check-ins is critical to Foursquare's recommendation success. They don't have the broad review base of Yelp or an editorial team, so check-ins are all they have. By splitting this functionality into a separate app (outside of the Foursquare app itself), they are explicitly going to lower check-in volume, because SOME percentage of people simply won't download "Swarm". And then if they lose some of their user base, it decreases the utility for all Foursquare users as (a) the recommendation data won't be as solid, and (b) users will lose valuable friend check-in data.
Maybe I'm overplaying the slippery-slope angle, but when your business largely relies on a particular user action (check-ins, in this case), it seems unwise to split that functionality outside of your core product in a move that will unquestionably make taking that action more difficult.
I initially compiled this prior to Dorian's definitive written denial. Prior to that development, it genuinely seemed like the Newsweek article was going to (a) simply fade into obscurity and (b) never be retracted. The possibility of "b" was unacceptable, because without a final nail in the coffin, most news organizations would still treat it as though it were legitimate – e.g. referring to Dorian with phrases like "the alleged Bitcoin founder", and so on.
I think Dorian's written denial probably served as that final nail, but I still released this because despite the denials, I think Newsweek easily could have done the same research I did in compiling this, and come to this conclusion before they published the feature and damaged their rep.
The HR person has been on the job for a minimum of 31 business days and a maximum of 53. Horvath joined two years ago. Unless you are a GitHub insider, you currently are working off knowledge from a single source in which the information was provided by a person with a specific agenda. It is malicious to call for the HR person's job given your almost complete dearth of information.
This product is the closest I've seen to matching that vision. So despite its very obvious illegality, I appreciate the authors' efforts to try and push the UX boundaries around content viewing. Hopefully instead of Hollywood suing the pants off of the creators, they'll use it as a template for what might be possible if they could collectively get their shit together.
It sure seems like the author went into the chatroom looking for a story, and got the THINNEST of all possible stories ("Random Google Developer Has Opinions") and, in an effort to turn it into real news, colored it in the most negative way possible. It is profoundly terrible journalism, and the motives behind it are so ugly. This is not something that we should endorse on Hacker News.
The only story of relevance here is that Digital Ocean has a line in its TOS about not allowing "harassment or embarrassment", and they will enforce it if you do indeed harass a guy.