Androsynth

This is true for a small % of the people. But if those people move over to cocaine or kidnapping or human trafficking, they will at least be in a smaller market. Their sociopathic tendencies will effect less people.

or...they could go to a big time lobbying firm and have the media do all that, but in a legal and more effective fashion. They may not be sophisticated enough to do something that simple, but it would be far more effective to pay experts to do the dirty work than handle it yourself.

edit: to answer PGs question, follow the money trail.

You could also sit in a steel fold-up chair while you program and probably get about the same amount done over the course of a day. Dvorak layout is like the Herman Miller office chair of layouts. (or maybe colemak is, but its not qwerty)

As a Dvorak user, I came to this thread happy to discuss the pros and cons (I usually chime in on these threads). But it bothers me that the top the thread is someone who is so close-minded. Plus its obvious that you have never learned dvorak, so it also bothers me that you got any upvotes at all.

About two months ago I was thinking that the bubble, of which everyones been talking about for the past years, might finally pop soon. I thought I might short some major tech companies and make some money off of it. I had two indicators that I was looking at to determine the start of it:

1-Zynga begins laying off people. (really, any big web 2.0 company begins laying off people, but zynga seemed like the logical choice.) The way I see it is this: if a flood of veteran web-devs, artists, PMs, etc hit the SF market, salaries will go down slightly as demand goes down. Since techies spend their money on tech, this will lead to revenues going down within the industry. This will begin a positive feedback loop because everything seems to be built on top of itself right now.

2-Second indicator is that Amazon's stock would fall. This is because they are essentially the bellwether of the tech industry: everyone runs their stuff on AWS. If their revs go down (which it doesnt look like they have), that means companies are feeling the pinch. Again, a positive feedback loop could quickly ensue.

Now that my two indicators have come to pass, I still don't believe strongly enough in the bubble theory to short the industry. But if anyone else wants to take my theory to the bank, I would be happy to take a 10% referral fee on any and all gains :)

> Addiction's downside is that gains are subjected to the law of diminishing returns.

100% nailed it. They stopped being able to develop hits that could keep up with the diminishing returns they were seeing on their old games.

I always thought that had Zynga just focused on keeping their slot machines shiny, accessible and easy to use, they wouldnt be in this mess. Instead they decided to reinvent the slot machine every year or so. It worked for a while but there's only so much you can do before you have to start outright copying. In other words, fight diminishing returns by continually improving the game rather than continually building new games.

Thats why I made the 'get off my lawn' comment, because I know I was coming off as a bit of a crank :)

In response to evan_'s comment, I give an explanation that describes in a bit more detail why I feel gamification is bad in general. So the first paragraph I wrote was a 'the magic is lost' rant, and the second is an angry rant at gamification. I think it is bad and you can see in my other comment for a partial reason why.

I have nothing against this particular product other than the progress bars. If the magic is lost, its lost. But the addictive mechanics that are springing up in more and more web/mobile applications are a disturbing trend. We, the business class, have found out how to make slot machines cool and we're all slapping each other on the back as we make money hand over fist while turning countless customers into addicts.

(I dont believe this product will turn anyone into an addict and I may be making comments that seem extreme when taken out of context. This may be a deeper issue than can be discussed on a internet forum)

A game can be fun; it can be deep and complex...or it can be like farmville. The problem is that companies are moving in droves towards Farmville type products because addiction is more profitable. I would like this community, as the vanguard of tech development, to see that there is a problem with this.

It fills up your progress bar as you perform their actions. That is the definition of gamification.

well obviously. But I want others to see gamification for what it really is. The decision to use gamification in your products is similar to the decision to add fiberglass to cigarettes in the mid 20th century. Executives at tobacco companies didnt think it was bad, they just knew it would increase profits.

Obviously this app does not have the same scope as cigarettes. But slowly more and more products/games are moving towards this model. The AAA game industry very quickly adopted zynga-esque addiction mechanics rather than 'fun' mechanics.

edit: before I get downvoted for what might seem like a ridiculous comparison, let me give some context.

About a month ago, one of my favorite MMOs ever, and imo the greatest MMO ever made, Vanguard:SOH was changed from subscription to F2P by its owner SOE. VG:SOH is the deepest, most complex MMO ever created and has a huge world. However once it went F2P, SOE turned it into essentially a zynga game. It changed from an rpg to an item-driven grind fest (ie keep grinding these same quests and you can get epic loot). Then you can buy xp potions to make leveling go by faster. In short they turned it from a rpg into slot machine. With a consistent and easy path to get your endorphin bursts.

Now this isn't that different than what every other AAA game studio is doing to their games (except maybe Valve). The path is clear to them. The term gamification exists because non-game companies want to take advantage of this model. But what they don't understand is that they are making shallow, heartless products that guide you towards their goals rather than making something fun and enjoyable. In other words, the cigarette analogy is perfectly apt. Cigarettes have been made optimally efficient to cause addiction whereas previously they had just been an enjoyable experience and not nearly as addictive. Addiction profit is a gold mine.

When I used to live in SF, I would always go on walks and explore the city. I found that it would take several visits before I could fully remember the details of a new route or area, but once I knew that place I would move onto a new area. This was enjoyable and I got to see the innards of a beautiful city.

Now this? Congratulations, you have turned a peaceful and enjoyable experience into a slot machine. Now rather than enjoying where I am, I can enjoy hearing my phone go DING! You will lose all connection to the places you go. Rather than rely on my own memory, which takes a few trips, I will just go to a neighborhood once, cross it off my checklist and probably never go back. Because going back wont give me the exp I need to level up and release endorphins.

Gamifaction is the public relations term for addiction.

Anyway, get off my lawn, yada yada...

In strategy games, there is a fog over areas where you have no vision (ie places you dont have any units that can see exactly what is happening at that moment). This introduces uncertainty and allows for more strategy based on positioning and vision.

This is based on a real military concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_of_war

There is a decent discussion that could be had regarding how capitalism should deal with negative externalities. However your equating of 'Traditional Capitalism' with 20th century American Capitalism mars everything you said.

When I first got into catch up, I used the list at wikipedia of joint hugo and nebula award winners: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_joint_winners_of_the_Hu...

Not sure if anyone will ever see this...

It is not a traditional module I will agree. However I see it as a hybrid class/interface/module and in this role, it works very well and allows you a tremendous amount of flexibility due to the dynamicness of js.

Law of diminishing returns?

The singleton pattern he presents is pretty common and pretty powerful. It is a self-invoking module. It allows you to use the module pattern (very solid js pattern) and probably has less code than your method.

Also, javascript has closures, use them. this._private is a hacky java-esque way of doing things. return {public_methods...} is a solid way of working towards the strengths of the language and doing proper js encapsulation.

As for the prototype pattern, there are a million ways you can do that. Best to learn the fundamentals so you can use whatever works best based on the situation.

edit: I should add that one of the reasons I like JS patterns is that there are multiple correct ways to implement them based on the situation. There are many wrong ways too, of course :) but it is a very flexible language.

Module pattern. It is easily one of Javascripts greatest strengths.

Intermediate JS devs need online resources too. Imo, an in-depth explanation of inheritance and the module pattern would be the best possible resources for people at that level of the learning curve. In other words, just read Doug Crockford.

In JS, a singleton is a reference to a module. It is used to ensure you invoke the module only once.

Global variables are irrelevant since your global namespace most likely resembles a tree structure.

edit: you may be right about the command pattern, I've never used something like that. It may just be the example is half-assed though.

Unfortunately this is true. One of the defining moments in US history is when George Washington chose to resign his post as general of the continental army rather than use it to crown himself emperor.

The big question is would it have worked? Was the fledgling country so republic-loving that it would have overcame a despotic Washington?

In other words, how robust is freedom when the general populace really wants it (and has somewhat of the means to back it up)?

I figured it was to the parent of the comment you linked to: you will be the wrecked shell of the person you once were

Slot machines are a much better analogy imo. Mindlessly pulling/tapping and getting rewarded at steady intervals. You continue to shove in your money so you can continue to get rewards.

Arcade games on the other hand were still fun and challenging even if you took away the psychology behind stuffing in quarters. (no one has console slot machines)

But arcade games did dominate game design for about 15 years. It wasnt until the late 90's that console developers realized that they didnt have to design games the way they had been doing since 1980. Just look at Super Mario Brothers, it is designed as an arcade game: lives, timer, padded number of levels.

On a side note: I would take arcade games over social games any day. Arcade games were made to be hard in order to gobble up quarters. Anyone born in the early 80s remembers games as being really, really challenging. Social games are being made to be mindless and addictive.

logout is not idempotent. If you send a log-out request, the system will log you out. All subsequent attempts will do nothing.

Therefore the results are different for different states and it is not idempotent.

They originally invested in the webview interface. In light of that investment, doesnt that mean its a good idea?

No, of course not. What they invest in is irrelevant. Only results matter.

Just look at Mootothemax's comment further down the thread. Poor UI wasn't causing people to not use FB.

Valley execs are probably the most susceptible group to falling in line with the echo chamber. Currently the chamber is reverberating with 'APPLE GOOD!'.

This HN meme that all companies should be like Apple is getting a bit ridiculous. FB has always been an efficient engineering organizing that pushes out features constantly. They don't derive their value from their UI nor have they ever. There is no reason for them to start copying Apple now.

FB users don't use it because of the slick interfaces, they use it because of network effects. For that type of business, adding features fast (to create more lock-in) > focusing on great UI.

Its not ragging when its constructive with a thoughtful argument.

The OP paid an extra $150 to take a class that guarantees A's. The alternative was to pay an extra $0 and have to actually earn his A. He got greedy and bought his A.

The system is broken, but to give in to a corrupt professor's bribe in order to get an A isn't the fault of greedy publishers.

TF2 is the least odious f2p game in general. Nothing forces you to buy the keys. But the numbers show that simple psychology causes a lot of people to open them just to see whats inside.

F2P in general is based on the notion that 'if you give someone a reward for something, they will pay for more of that reward'. Alternatively, if you give someone a way to make it easier to "achieve" that reward, they will pay you to make it easier. So therefore f2p games are designed around getting you into essentially a skinner box where you get a constant rate of rewards and can either pay to make the reward process easier or you can pay to make it happen more often.

The problem with this addiction model is that it puts an incredible amount of stress on your users. These games are not inherently fun, they are just addictive. The stress leads to burn out and players quitting. This is all on a spectrum of course, I would barely categorize TF2 as using this model. Zynga games define this model.

Edit:

let me tie my last 2 paragraphs to my first. In TF2, you can either get new guns at constant periodic intervals. Or you can pay to get them in crates, which drop fairly often. This is a skinner-box/addiction model. It is a small part of TF2, but Zynga games use this as the basis of their game's design.

More and more games and using this model and fall somewhere in between Zynga and Valve. The problem is the slope towards Zynga is steep and its easy to make people buy things if you use Zyngaesque features. This benefits your company in the short term but kills it in the long term.

I think there will a bigger backlash than even your examples in the near future. It will be similar to app.net, people will realize that paying is better than not-paying.