soft_dev_person

Your comment (point 2 especially) reflects the current widespread notion (among employers at least, it seems) that one hour of work is one hour of work, always. I think the main point of the article is exactly to counter that.

> "Productivity – output per working hour – improves with shorter hours."

And why should the employer get all the benefit from this? I think a lot of people would love to work fewer hours, be more productive those hours, if they could retain the same salary.

I would love to, at least, but can't afford reduced pay.

I didn't attribute it to you, but your comment was analoguous to this common criticism of some popular artists today, and reminded me of them.

Similar ways of diminishing other people's work are used everywhere, but are typically a result of being more or less elitist. "Not a real X if you didn't do it in way Y or use tool Z."

For some, the process is more important than the outcome (or just as), but I think it's wrong to impose such opinions on everybody else. Just my opinion, of course.

I had the same experience and only started using Spotify when Pandora left Europe.

Discover Weekly is a very good replacement, though, even if it's not the same.

And "real producers/DJs/artists don't use Fruity Loops", yet some of them are making quite a lot of money from it...

A "real" musician probably takes cues from other music, other sounds in the world. Why discriminate against algorithmically created sounds?

But it's not out of reach for Apple or Google to change the premise on their own market places.

They just need motivation to do so, and avoid scaring away the majority of developers that don't have a big company backing them up _might_ be that motivation.

But letting search be affected by tags more than the description text would be a way to let the devs prioritize the most important keywords. Other people don't really need to know anything about them.

As opposed to putting "tags" in the app title (motivation for all calendar apps to be named something with Calendar) or X number of times in the description text (motivation for unnatural copy).

Disclaimer: Based on what little I know about search priority in Google Play.

Not to trivialize his opinion, but I always thought it was a wide spread notion that not allowing anonymity will lead to only "politically correct" or "harmless" opinions to surface.

I made the same argument when one of the Norwegian newspapers I somewhat read regularly (online) started requiring full names in the comments sections. The comments sections are now completely boring and predictable, and any really important but sensitive issues that would really need a minority voice in the debate are just not debated at all.

At least not on a civil level. There are always those who blurt out anything even under their full name (although possibly fake), but these tend to be the same people who are not really able to articulate a sensible and constructive argument for their case.

Personally I have opinions I would not like to link to my real name, since I need to work for a living in a place where we have customers and such...

It's ironic that he even dares to state that piracy "negatively impacts audience experience".

If anything, it is the legal ways to watch movies that have traditionally had the inverior experience. Forcing me to watch commercials or be warned that copyright is a crime for minutes before the actual content.

Movie industry: You have always been burning bridges! Wake up, for crying out loud! </pointless rant>

Yet support takes many forms, not only monetary, and not only from the audience (propaganda comes to mind...).

But I'm willing to moderate my statement to "no AAA blockbusters will be made" or "no really high budget movies will be made", or something like that. It will have an impact on the budget of movies. Some may argue that is a good thing, but I enjoy my Matrix, LoTR, Hobbit, Cloud Atlas, Marvels, etc. and don't really want that to go away.

Because I'm an adult, now. With morals and a conscience.

Seriously, I would like to support the creation of the content I like to consume. If nobody supports it, nothing will be made.

I, too, understand that we're still far from such a situation, but I would rather not get there before someone make changes to this idiocy.

Then again, there are people who prefer a legal solution when it's available and offers sufficient quality and ease of access.

I am subscribed to several services, but often, usually for the newest and coolest, it is simply not possible for me to stream a movie legally. If they would only focus on solving that instead of raging against their customers, they could maybe _then_ start to complain about piracy.

If anyone misses a demo: http://jsfiddle.net/n3dgjLo5/

If you have any kind of non-tech savvy users, it's a terrible practice, as you would be flooded with support requests on how to get into their accounts with no way of verifiying the actual owner.

He clearly makes a point of supporting user CSS, but also a point of being usable by default, so it clearly misses that...

Also, I doubt most regular users could be bothered to actually write custom CSS for the entire web. Most people have zero knowledge of how to do it, not to mention how to actually improve what they want to improve.

The only reasonable real world case I can see is accessibility, which is certainly a valid case, and should be considered by all web designers/developers.

body { max-width: 1000px; }

Ahh. Much better.

Clearly. I was just considering the drought in the west of US lately and the statement "is now becoming".

Personally I live in Norway where we wash our garbage and shower in high quality drinking water. I still find it absurd from time to time, considering the lack of fresh water in many places in the world.

Edit: Corrected quote

I feel a very American point of view in your comment. Hasn't fresh drinking water been a valuable resource in plenty of places in the world for as long as time can remember?

Be clever and make good things happen to you.

> but in hindsight, before other vendors shipped, usability was blocked.

Haven't we learned this lesson before?

I think it's more likely that Google didn't want other vendors' interference, to avoid design by committee thwarting whatever they were trying to achieve.

If I ever buy a car with skateboard as a chassis, I'll be very disappointed!

Sorry, just had to =)

Thank you for being. Both of you.

True for Gmail (and similar, I'm sure), not so true for my corporate Outlook account where search sucks and is really slow, and has ridiculously tiny storage allocated so I actually have to archive older messages in an actual file...

"With all that, the last 20% of a Cordova app may well take 80% of development time, and that's rarely been budgeted in."

To be fair, that could be said about most software projects. "80% done, now the last 80% remains."

Not that I disagree with you, I had the same experience trying to make an Android app in Phonegap. It's lacking, like most cross-platform frameworks (for most types of apps, but typically not games) I have tried. They are only suitable for basic stuff where the native feel isn't critical.

I would never go so far to purchase anything. If this is the situation, just stop using PayPal for payment processing!

> People have the option of not paying so a lot of them won't.

But a lot of them will. They will pay for ease of access, legal access, and a good user experience.

If the industry had focused its energy on those willing to pay instead of those not willing to pay, maybe the UX Popcorn Time provides today would have been available as a legal subscription based service.

Just look at Spotify. Yes, a lot of people still don't pay for the music they consume, but a lot of people do. Pirating of music has certainly seen a decline, even if we may never get rid of it completely.

This was my exact same experience where I used to work, where large parts of the company's code base maintenance was moved to India. It decayed really quickly.

The culture we were met with was tragic to say the least. The only thing that mattered to the Indian managers were error reports and statistics, to the point where I was confronted for reporting an error without consulting with them directly first, so they could spoof the numbers...

And some of the developers I had to interface with literally needed to be told, character by character, what to do to fix even the most basic stuff.

And yes, on the other hand, we had Indian colleagues integrated locally which were some of the best people around.

Outsourcing is hard. You will likely not get any top talent unless you really know how to work the market, and then it will likely not be particularly cheap.

It is warned somewhat in the readme.md, which also mentions it could more interestingly be used in CMS admin pages to watermark images during upload, when the server for whatever reason is not capable. The original would then never be accessible to the public.

So it certainly has its uses.

Edit: I see this point was made already in that other thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9545601

Which is probably exactly the reason why charging/paying by the hour is the default. Much easier to reason about, and much easier to measure.

Sometimes the cost of fixing bad work is actually greater than just doing it right when your mind is capable of it.

Also, I don't think software development is very comparable to writing a book. Unless you need to finish a book every day, your mistakes one day can easily be fixed the next.

In software, if your bad work on a project is committed to a place where it affects others, it may very well be too destructive to be worth it.

Changes in the specs requires negotiation anyway if you have a contract with an upper time/cost value. Charging by the hour doesn't solve that, unless you have a no limit contract that puts more or less all the risk on the client.

This is very rare where I work.