jamornh

I thought that was quite interesting as well... But it's the CEO who's 43. Ohashi, the PR manager, his age was never mentioned, I don't think.

EDIT: They did mention this though: > Ohashi, like most of Terra's 15 employees in their mid-twenties, ditched the prospect of working for a famous company to take a risk at a job where he'd be challenged.

So I assume he's in his mid 20's like the guy who's 26 at the beginning of the article.

According to this it should be quite easy to move your current redis on EC2 back to ElastiCache:

"Seamless Integration: If you are running Redis on EC2, you can transfer its contents to a new Amazon ElastiCache for Redis node. You may also attach a Redis node running on EC2 to an Amazon ElastiCache for Redis node."[1]

... at least after your reservations run out.

[1] https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2013/09/04/amazon...

And I thought these were already the terms we use for this type of software...

If you read the article, he did mention that his wife wasn't very happy that the server was taking 20-30% of the app's revenue. Then later on in the article he mentioned that he took the server cost from an average of $10 a day to just the free tier.

Based on this information I deduced that the revenue hovers around ~$1,000 a month? Not sure if this rough calculation is accurate though.

Keep in mind though, Tim's not going to be as involved on this particular project. He's not the lead on this one ;)

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that if Double Fine took the $3.3 million and delivered a 2D, mobile, prototype-esque game (which if you watched the documentary, was what they would have gone for with the $400,000) in the timeline they stated, people would have been happy.

It's exactly like they took the $2.9 million and ran. I think quite a lot of people would call that a scam at that point. In the end, with an extra $2.9 million, what were they going to do with it other than make sure that the game they end up delivering lives up to the huge sum that their fans gave them?

I think he was asking that if the guards can use a key to get through without setting off an alarm, why did this guy's key set the alarm off?

I thought all Google I/O 2012 attendees could buy one at one point?

The trailer that they have there seems to show that they've interviewed quite a few people. But yes, they did not mention who they will interview as a result of the funding and what the funding will allow them to do. They should definitely touch on that.

It would be good if they can get both sides and views in the same documentary.

Ah, I did not realize that the Blade is not yet available in the UK. Thanks for the correction.

If this was planned by Razer as a marketing trick then it is quite elaborate, although completely possible. There seems to be several hundred people on the comments who mentioned they made purchases and some would even cancel their order.

In order for this to be staged they would have to limit the number of times that the code could be used (allowable "loss" budget? max number of uses?) and then pretend to realize the mistake and take the site down at the right time (maybe when the "loss" reached a certain amount.) I guess it isn't completely inconceivable... but if that's the case, well-played Razer.

I don't think you can seriously believe that the Razer Blade being sold for $250 is "cost price."

But I'm sure they did a full calculation of the costs that they'd have to eat if they honor this mistake and thought it was worth it for the good PR it would create.

I just want the point out that the reason that this is so scary is that your reasoning can be taken the other way. It's always a slippery slope. How much is too much? Anything that's now illegal to obtain, can be made legal and the process starts over.

If you begin to allow your freedom and liberty to be eroded bit by bit, you're not going to notice it when it's totally gone. There's a reason why the freedom to privacy is important, and there are reasons why it was (and is) a good idea to follow the "innocent until proven guilty" line of thought.

Now I'm unsure where I stand myself, between the 2 extremes: allow a murderer walk due to lack of evidence or allowing the government to lock up innocent civilians just based on an algorithm's "suspicion" without charge. There has to be a middle ground somewhere. What I do know is, with the way things are going, it's moving faster and faster towards the later...

I don't have the answer but I think we agree that the citizens of the country that will be put under surveylance should have a say on whether they are OK with it, not signed into law behind their backs. I mean, I thought that's what democracy is all about.

In either case, since I don't live in the US, all I can really do about it is talk. It's up to you guys to have meaningful discussions and take action (or not) on this. But just know that this will end up affecting the way other world power treat their citizens. The world will definitely be keep an close eye on this.

This blog post reminds me of a New York Times article about Child Psychopathy... I'm not sure if it is the same as Schizophrenia but if they are not the same, I would say the child in this article sound closer to being psychopathic rather than schizophrenic... There are certainly not much the system can do for you in either case.

If you're interested, here's the chilling article by the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-...

I'm recalling this from memory, but if I remember correctly, Apple's argument for the 30% charge when they first launched the app store is that traditionally you'd have to publish through a telco, and telcos used to charge way more than 50% of the revenue in order to place your application through their portal. Not sure how true that is but now, because of Apple, 30% seems to be the new standard.