How could they roll out this marvelous new idea so quickly. Uber was genius to think of this radical concept, "splitting a cab," there is no way Lyft could come up with it so quickly on their own.
Libertarians view of government is, 'I want to be allowed to do whatever I want while everyone else is restricted to doing what I want them to do.' It's a dumb ideology that falls apart with literally any amount of thought.
I'll agree mission critical software exists. I however imagine there are far more engineering projects across the planets whose failure result in mass casualties than software. There is a reason actual engineers are legally liable for their work.
Their early versions looked closer to a blackberry. The general Jobs assertion is that Google switched to full touch screen after seeing the prototypes.
Theory is dumb when all empirical data disagrees with it. Good thing the Austrian's figured this problem out by ignoring data. It's the true hacker's way.
Inflation isn't bad and the only people that think it is are goldbugs with no understanding of economics. Asset backed currency have had MANY more crashes than fiat currencies. Bitcoin is a wonderful experiment in how long it will take people to learn the lessons the world learned over the previous 200~ years.
Congrats, you're a literal child! In turns out in-depth information takes time to properly explain and discuss. If you want a 10 minute summary that teaches you nothing, watch a TEDtalk. If you want to actually learn and understand an issue, read long form journalism.
'I'm not interested in this, i'm not on the west coast.' Y'all should learn where a majority of America's food comes from if you think this doesn't affect every American.
This is sort of a misunderstanding of evolution. It's not building to the most efficient or the greatest form of anything. It's spontaneous change that may or may not survive with no real reference to "the best."
So it's exactly like USD only: few accept it, there is a fee to transfer money in any reasonable amount of time, it isn't backed by any country, all of the exchanges are regularly stolen, it's a giant ponzi scheme, even the austrian economics think it's worth nothing, and there is no form of consumer protect/insurance whatosever. Sounds great, why hasn't the world switched over yet?
The SCOTUS generally doesn't comment on cases they don't accept. At best it's a comment on issues with the challenge's standing. This isn't a nefarious scheme. This is judicial normalcy.
It's 2013 and most people's data is in the cloud rather than on local devices?
Just because something is capable of doing something doesn't mean it should. A Truck is capable of street racing, but you'd be better off in an actual racing car. Make devices for specific use cases, not for everything. That's how you end up with Windows 8.
Friedman is a hack ignored by anyone with half a brain. Same with Ayn Rand. They say incredible things, if you don't spend much time thinking about it.
Not really germane to the topic, but I really dislike people that pitch their company as, "<existing company> for <demographic>." I get it lets you easily convey what you do since it's really just an improve version of an existing thing. Let your product stand on it's own. Sell what it does and why it's better. Not, "Like this existing thing, but fit into this subset?"
This isn't news. It's been known for decades the government spied on the Civil Rights movement. Which is what makes the reaction to PRISM so laughable. The only reason anyone cares is it has started to affect white people the same as minorities.
You're basing it off your experiences as a hardcore game interacting with hardcore gamers. The amount of people that wouldn't describe themselves as gamers that have emulated older games is a number at best in the quadruple digits. That isn't a big enough base to make money. If you want to make money you target the masses. The masses don't care about their parents video game characters.
Yet here we are, years later, talking about Nintendo's continued decline. Band-aids are great, but when you're bleeding internally; they don't do much.
This is an incredibly dumb assertion and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.
People make the comparison between the two because both companies have generally marched to their own tune. While their competitors obsessed over expanding the feature checklist of their devices, they worked on producing quality content on quality hardware. They were never the most advanced, but they were the simplest and most exciting.
I didn't reply to your first point. I'm not saying touch screen games are the dominant type, and neither is the article. The article is asserting that's the way things are going unless we get a monumental shift in gaming, which doesn't seem to be coming based off current announcements. Both of us are asserting: "Nintendo is ignoring the sea change in the world and coasting. This is a recipe for disaster."