spbaar

"We recognize that writers reasonably want to be left out of a dispute between large companies. Some have suggested that we "just talk." We tried that. Hachette spent three months stonewalling and only grudgingly began to even acknowledge our concerns when we took action to reduce sales of their titles in our store. Since then Amazon has made three separate offers to Hachette to take authors out of the middle. "

And the solutions they then present are very admirable. However, it was still amazon that took the unilateral action to punish authors, and it was likely the backlash from that that motivated those three noble solutions. It's a shame amazon had to poison the well with that move, because everything else points to Hachette being dumb and making bad decsions that hurt authors.

"Hachette spent three months stonewalling and only grudgingly began to even acknowledge our concerns when we took action to reduce sales of their titles in our store."

Hachette stonewalled. Amazon took action. Sales of Hachettes' titles. Out store.

Clearly, the authors did not factor into these moves.

"the lower price is good for all parties involved: the customer is paying 33% less and the author is getting a royalty check 16% larger and being read by an audience that's 74% larger. The pie is simply bigger."

That's great, but it's not a justification to hurt authors. It may be more revenue and customers for amazon in the long run, but these are authors who have put their souls into their art and worked for years. Jeopardizing their release window and sales for a percentage is evil and out of touch.

Yes, and the different tones of the bloops indicate the next piece.

Just use AOL keyword INBOX.

I backed that book you want. It's coming out next month. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/darrenwall/sega-mega-dr...

Just because the focus of publicly funded programs has shifted from encouraging kids to read more to teaching them how to read does not mean that RR has become less useful or its' goal less noble, only that the checkwriters have different priorities.

That the kickstarter was so successful among the kids of yesterday speaks to its' long lasting influence and positive impact. Even if it's just nostalgia and a catchy themesong driving the money, they will certainly do some good.

Can you message people?

I don't know if it's OK to make those jokes, but it's infinitely preferable to say it out loud explicitly and deal with it with humor than to just make fun of them for being weird and acting different like on big bang theory, where sheldon is clearly modeled after someone on the spectrum but with few redeeming qualities.

I've read quite a few articles about that incident but I still don't get it. One said that it was people who had been promoted then demoted but kept their stock? Here it says they 'negotiated' to keep some stock? Isn't that what a vesting schedule is for?

In the worst case scenario it appears that Pincus and the board saw the writing on the wall that their earnings would (and did) drop after the ipo. Rather than make drastic changes or pursue new strategies rather than farmville clones (which, to be fair, while profitable, apparently have a shelf-life of around 5 years, after which the audience got tired of them and left), they decided to focus on avoiding a bad story. Their priority became stopping a google chef story from happening at the same time their earnings failed to meet expectations.

That still doesn't explain it, however. Google chef and microsoft secretarey becoming millionares is a story. Sub-par engineer/business analyst/game designer becomes millionare after ipo is not. Looking at the small number of people affected and assuming they didn't clawback much more than half the stock, there's no way they got much more than 50m back.

Then the only explanation becomes that they REALLY wanted to give the stock to attract new talent. "Come work for stock we clawed back from the last guy who already vested" is the least appealing job offer I've heard of that doesn't involve poisonous snakes.

Then the only explanation becomes that they were vindictive and did not want someone to profit a lot when they thought they contributed a little and in reality probably did a medium-quality job. Looking at some rants on quora, it seems like they spend a lot of money on a lot of unnecessary things and are just looking to scapegoat at this point.

I still don't really understand, though, and that bothers me.

I built a markov chain fun app on android for SMS but gave up when I realized it's basically impossible to support all or most devices, like he said. Each manufacturer has different sms columns in the undocumented database. Some sms apps delete and move it so you can't see. You can't see people's hangouts or whatsapp etc conversations.

Google went through all the trouble making content providers then doesn't even have one for sms.

We can only hope that basic income allows them to read more books.

The interesting consequence of this is that since you can react to the repalys, and the replays can't react to you, players will almost subconsciously play attack and defense in a smart way to win the game. So most players will have a win ratio of over 50% in a multiplayer game. It's a neat trick to keep everyone happy.

As someone who doesn't want to die, could you elaborate? What temperatures are you talking about that would cause that?