It's been fixed.
> May 6, 2022 Update: We have fixed an issue in Docs related to repetitive use of the word ‘and.’ This fix should soon be in place for all customers.
3,136 karma · joined May 7, 2010
> May 6, 2022 Update: We have fixed an issue in Docs related to repetitive use of the word ‘and.’ This fix should soon be in place for all customers.
Just like if I named a game "Alcohol" and the logo was a glass with some liquid in it, and the tagline was "Have a good time". Individually none of those would necessarily be promoting drinking alcohol. After all, alcohol has uses for cleaning, and the glass is just a glass, and "Drink in the fun" is just describing what it's like playing the game. But if you put them together, they unequivocally do.
As for there being legitimate uses of amphetamines, I'm not saying there aren't (I'm well aware of these uses, personally). That doesn't mean the off-label uses are legal. AFAIK, at least in the US, using amphetamines solely to "keep awake" is an illegal usage, and the tagline is referring specifically to that.
The logo is basically a big pill and the tagline "Powerful keep-awake utility" which is clearly alluding to the drug. https://imgur.com/a/RJXHaBa
This was consistent with the feedback the author received: "[the] app appears to promote inappropriate use of controlled substances. Specifically, your app name and icon include references to controlled substances, pills"
Almost all of the other top apps in the app store in the same category use some reference to caffeine either in the name or tagline or description (e.g. "Jolt of Caffeine" or "Owly" which has a logo of an owl in a cup of coffee) https://imgur.com/a/yySBqEL
There's one other, much less popular app called "Coca" which appears to reference cocaine, but doesn't also have a drug-referencing icon or tagline, and which only has 15 reviews. By comparison, Amphetamine seems to be the most popular result, at least for the search term "awake", with 1.37K reviews
The guideline in question doesn't seem to consider excessive use of caffeine as problematic to encourage. "1.4.3 Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. Apps that encourage minors to consume any of these substances will be rejected. Facilitating the sale of marijuana, tobacco, or controlled substances (except for licensed pharmacies) isn’t allowed."
Overall, Amphetamine did seem to be pushing the drug-use angle much harder than other apps in the category based on the logo, tagline and title, especially if you consider caffeine abuse not problematic.
Added: I don't have a strong opinion on this one either way, other than edgy naming has pros and cons. Word of mouth is easier, but sometimes a problem like this happens.
It would be nice if there was an obvious way to report issues through the interface.
The characteristic of true passive-aggressive responses is to avoid direct confrontation, to mask conflict. For example, maybe by making a "joke" ("How's that food of mine that you're eating?") or by saying that somethings okay but not really meaning it ("I totally don't mind that you're eating all my food") or various other techniques.
...you have a child with a 90 with a sibling already in a program. If one child tests into a program, then later siblings are given preference over children without a sibling in the school, as long as they have a score over 90.
That doesn't sound that surprising to me either, but I don't think that matters for the claim that most are PD now. My intuition would be that big publishers wouldn't be responsible for a large percentage of the published titles in that time period. Certainly, from the standpoint of units sold they would be, but not distinct works.
There's a lot more niche, technical, academic, low-end, etc works even though most people consume the mass-market popular stuff. I would expect that all those long-tail things to be the ones that never got renewed, and to be in the majority as far as titles go.
The linked post in the article is very detailed and has more background: https://www.nypl.org/blog/2019/05/31/us-copyright-history-19...
Hi, I'm an Engineering Director at The Orchard. We're hiring for lots of engineering-related roles in NYC and London, including on my team (which is responsible for digital distribution of music). We're one of the premier distribution companies, preferred partners of both Spotify and Apple (at least last I checked, the only digital distributor with this distinction). We do a lot with Python, React and a lot with AWS, plus a number of other interesting tech, in a nicely laid-back environment.
Here's a blurb I cribbed from a job listing about what the company does: "The Orchard is a leading music distribution company distributing music from artists such as Ozuna, Jorja Smith, Run The Jewels and Kelsea Ballerini. With cutting edge operations and an unparalleled global team, The Orchard partners with companies of all sizes to make their music available across hundreds of digital outlets and physical retailers around the world. At The Orchard, the focus is to provide a comfortable, social and engaging environment to encourage productivity and creativity."
Drop me a line at pinfieldharm@theorchard.com if you'd like to learn more or just chat.
So what approach did they use the first time around?
Slide 11, "Q1-Q3 FY2018 Results by Segment" shows that all of Sony had an operating income of a bit over 800 billion yen. Of that, about 250 billion came from gaming and network services (so hardware + PSN, basically). By comparison, mobile communications _lost_ about 50 billion.
[1] https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9656/how-much-di...
What's to stop them from reversing the policy change? Once bitten, twice shy.
javascript:window.location.href='https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u='+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href);