oddevan

Also, they are still a "for-profit" entity; they just legally declare they're going to do things with said profit besides make money for the shareholders.

Going full non-profit would have stricter requirements for income, marketing, business deals, etc. Mozilla did something similar where you download Firefox from Mozilla Inc. that has business arrangements with Google and Pocket (for example); The Mozilla Foundation itself can't enter into those sorts of agreements without violating their non-profit status.

It's all really complicated and a big headache and Kickstarter's doing a good job by avoiding all that, honestly.

I think the issue in the article was that someone in the group took offense and called out said speaker on his language, and the speaker just fumbled around instead of apologizing. Even a quick "Yeah, sorry," would have at least been a gesture at respect.

With the number of people and experiences out there, we're going to offend people. What matters is how we behave when we're called out.

So you're absolutely right in that "it can be a clue that the person might be generally disrespectful of others."

Definitely the unaddressed elephant in the linked article.

The mobile-first design, the '.me' address... all of this points to an answer to Square Cash.

Except for the part where he specifically mentioned Swift's ARC as something to expose Intro students to vs. Python's garbage collection?

That's a fair point. IIRC, FaceTime actually ran into patent trouble that kept it from being a P2P protocol, so they couldn't really open it up.

It's my understanding from the press release that, once the 9-month window passes, PBS will get the episodes both for broadcast and for streaming, and they'll get them for free. I might have misread, though. Regardless, they're also trying to keep the relationship with PBS alive, probably for exactly the reasons you state.

I know app bundles were introduced in the iOS App Store and some developers had started using them as a hack around "paid upgrades." Given that they didn't get a mention in the original post, I'm assuming they don't exist on the Mac App Store. Seems like an easy win that could solve half the problems mentioned...

(For the record: a user that has already purchased an app in a bundle only has to pay the difference to complete the bundle. So the idea is having version 1 and version 2, each for $30, but sell the bundle for $50. Owners of version 1 can essentially upgrade to version 2 for $20.)

So I'd be able to use these to watch old Homestar Runner cartoons? Sweet.

Agreed. I like Apple more than most but... C'MON, GUYS! They've already got the technology in iTunes Match and it works pretty well. No clue why they didn't use it for this, especially when the whole "iCloud Music Library" is one of the bigger selling points of the service v. Spotify, Rdio, etc.

"One foot out the door"? "Mentally absent"? "Checked out"? Whatever it is, I'm familiar.

I thought the accepted definition was a company whose only source of revenue was patent licenses and lawsuits, not products or services based on said patents.

My money's on someone running a Plex server (or something similar) on their own machine, then going to reddit and saying "I have a copy of [X], you can watch it here:" with a link to 127.0.0.1 (since that's how they watch it, so why wouldn't it work for anyone else?).

I.E. We're dealing with the intersection of an automated framework with a "normal."

I'll second this. There's large parts of internet culture that exists in flash animations. DeviantArt, Newgrounds, and of course Homestar Runner...

There was never any "official" 3rd party access to the API other than an "add article" action. And when the API was made available, it was only to subscribers since the main revenue stream was sales of the official app. Since the official app is now free, that revenue stream doesn't need to be protected, and thus the API is now available to everyone.

I'm with you on Beats 1. I'm really digging the London DJ's show so far.

I have to hope there's some sort of skunkworks project in Apple to replace iTunes; it's got too many little moving parts that are all essential for one thing or another.

I totally get the major labels making the 1.5% increase/3-month trial concession; but after nearly every independent artist I pay attention to basically said they couldn't/wouldn't make the same concession, I'm glad Apple relented. I want one of these services to at least act like they appreciate the value of music.

Myself, I've never made enough off that one rap CD to recoup the cost of sending it to CD Baby, so I've got NO skin in this fight. :)

This. I think Apple is convinced that 3 months is enough time to get customers in the HABIT of using their service such that they'll look at the new $10 charge on their iTunes bill, shrug their shoulders, and go back to listening to music. The whole "no royalties" thing is just Apple playing hardball to try to minimize the cost of the free trial.

Personally, I think they should subsidize some of the smaller/indie labels that can't afford the 3-month drop, but that's plan F or even M for Apple.

Every address I give out is one of my own domains. Mostly they redirect to my gmail account, but this way I can change to a different provider or suddenly spin up my own mail server and no one has to update their address book.

Edit to add: My point not withstanding, yeah, that's an arbitrary "cluefullness" test.

An unlocked door is not in itself permission to enter a house.

Bad or no security is not in itself permission to enter.

Yes, the Astros do bear some responsibility to make sure things are not easily accessible. That doesn't change the fact that what the Cardinals did was wrong.

The Mac will never move the needle as much as the iPhone is right now, and that's ok. Jobs said that traditional computers are like trucks: not everyone needs them, but those that do really use them. So if Apple is like Ford, then just because the Taurus is selling like hotcakes right now doesn't mean the F-150 is going to get dropped.

I don't know the details, but I know they emphasized that the three(!) platforms share a lot of common frameworks/foundation. Basically, when the iPhone was introduced, Jobs said "iPhone runs OS X." That hasn't changed, and I believe the watch does to a certain extent.

So from a programmatic standpoint, they are three platforms with one foundation. And Apple isn't going to proclaim "one OS X" any time soon since they want to emphasize (and make sure developers are aware of) each platforms' differences: iOS for touch interactions and limited multitasking, watchOS for limited interactions (glances), OS X for power users and doing things not possible/practical on iOS. But all three are programmed with Objective-C/Swift and use some Cocoa-like framework.

I think the parent comment is trying to say that the article did not provide any valid counter arguments.

My guess is they're using Linux in their datacenters and want to be able to write programs for them in Swift. That, or they figured that's where all the "Open Source" action is going to be/an "Open Source" language without Linux support is useless.

This. I'm SUPER excited to have a Swift backend for a web app, and/or I've been toying around with the core logic of another app. Either idea doesn't need anything in the way of GUI, just the standard library and maybe a few things from Foundation that should be in the standard library anyway (like pseudorandom number generation).

And if there's anyone even later, I've got a few as well: https://keybase.io/oddevan

> not everyone harbors racist, sexist, or otherwise wholly objectionable thoughts in the recesses of their mind and certainly not everyone speaks such things publicly.

I'll agree that "not everyone speaks such things publicly." The issue here is that jokes that are funny or at least "okay" in one context are incredibly offensive out of that context, and social media makes it easy for jokes to be taken out of context.

But everyone, everyone has something in their mind that someone else finds objectionable. This is human nature. Even if those thoughts are not voiced or acted on, they are still there. The internet is so large with so many different views that inevitably someone will offend someone else without meaning to; even views that one person does not consider "sexist" could be "sexist" to someone else.

Thanks for sharing. My wife is a big photography enthusiast, and I think we may have both applied to work for Photojojo in the past. :) Anyway, I wanted to say that I am incredibly impressed by this. It's not every day that I hear the story of someone setting out to build a sustainable company^; and, from what limited perspective I have, you seem to have succeeded.

Bravo, sir; bravo. I wish you all the best.

^edit: So I'm not misinterpreted here, by "sustainable company" I mean one whose goal is to grow slowly and profitably on its own, not quickly in hopes of an IPO or acquisition. Those companies have their place, and it's a good place. I just like to hear the other stories too.

Eenope. I also trust AmEx's fraud prevention infinitely more than PayPal's.

I'll agree with you with the caveat that "just a nervous breakdown" might be a little dismissive.

Does he need a sabbatical? Absolutely. It sounds like after one-too-many classes of willfully unteachable students (as in students that refuse to learn, not students that are unable to learn), enough was enough and he had had it with these motherf%$&ing students in this motherf%$&ing school.

I think a lot of us here on HN can empathize with overwork and burnout, and it sounds like this professor may have ignored the warning signs for too long. I hope he can get the help he needs.

Normally I'd agree, but I think they're doing this in the style of http://www.whatthefuckshouldimakefordinner.com/