ruswick

I'm on Android, but you point seems to mesh with what I've come to like about Facebook's mobile strategy lately. Instead of trying to jam every single feature into a single Facebook App, FB is releasing different apps the serve niche functions, and allowing users to use the products (and, with Paper, the interface) that work for them.

Personally, I don't have the Facebook app on my phone. The only FB app I use regularly is Messenger, which works well because everyone I know is on it. I also use Facebook for finding reading material and following the News, and so Paper looks really nice and I'm eagerly anticipating its arrival on Android.

A lot of people deride Facebook for over-complicating their app strategy, but I really don't see the problem. Facebook is allowing users pick and choose the functions that matter to them. I wish other companies would take this approach.

I am a high school student who has not worked full-time in the industry. My resume consists of two internships and a handful of side projects. Despite this, recruiters still contact me from time to time. I generally ignore them.

This makes sense. These policies are probably warranted for actual credit card companies. But, the OP's grievance was with Square, which isn't liable for fraud and probably doesn't need to use such excessive security.

Frankly, it often seems as though many consumer financial companies (like Mint and Square, etc.) go out of their way to make their service harder to use simply to increase their "legitimacy."

Sites like Mint refuse to remember login information and automatically log users out after a short period of time. As far as I'm aware actual bank account can't be accessed from Mint; data is only reported. In the grand scheme, this information is not particularly important.

It would be far more catastrophic for someone to gain access to my email account or social network profiles (where they could actually do damage) than it would be for them to learn what (little) I have in my bank account. Yet, we all survive using only standard security on most of our other accounts.

Moreover, there seems to be a huge disparity between credit card security in the real world and credit card security online anyway. In the real world, I hand my credit card to numerous people with whom I have no relationship and whom I can't trust at all, every single day. No one thinks twice. Yet, when someone wants to look at their bank statement, they need to bend over backwards. It just doesn't make sense.

Integral pieces of the financial apparatus might need to be totally secure, but consumer web apps that don't ever handle money don't, and should put user experience first.

Why? Because the sheer magnitude is crazy. Rap Genius's traffic fell by nearly two thirds! This is a very prominent, YC-affiliated startup that is being nuked by Google. It should come as no surprise that the news is seen as significant by the HN crowd.

Moreover, I think many people are upset with the scope of Google's punishment. De-weighting RG is one thing, nuking it into the ground is entirely different, and is in my opinion unwarranted. Even searching directly for the name of the site does not yield any Rap Genius results.

If I type "Rap Genius" into Google, I am justified in expecting Rap Genius to be the first result. Period. When Google goes out of its way to effectively expunge a site from existence (to the extent that Google can expunge a site), they are doing a massive disservice to their users and are degrading the quality of their search results.

There is no reason that a response of this magnitude by Google is justified, and by issuing such a draconian response, Google has lessened the usability of their product and done a disservice to their users.

Agreed. So far, I've seen nothing but specious fear-mongering and nonsensical "what-if" arguments against this thing.

I can understand why people doubt the feasibility of drone delivery, especially given the legal impediments to adoption. Frankly, I doubt that this type of service will be practical within four years. What I can't understand is why people openly reject the idea of drones.

I don't see how Prime Air is any less safe or efficient than sending thousands of five-ton metal boxes barreling down residential streets. I don't see why a five-pound piece of plastic falling from the sky poses an appreciably greater risk than a branch falling on you. I don't see how people can draw parallels between small, low-altitude consumer drones and military UAVs. The level of fear surrounding this announcement makes no sense.

The response to Prime Air goes far beyond skepticism. It's incoherent, fanatical pessimism, and it's really dissapointing.

This piece is incredibly myopic and somewhat appalling. A more appropriate title would be "Things affluent tech workers should be thankful for."

The list doesn't offer any sort of context for the numbers presented, nor does it demonstrate causality in any way, shape, or form. In all likelihood, the reason that life is so good in SF is that all the people for whom life is difficult have been forced out of the city or into homelessness by entitled, privileged tech workers.

In my opinion, there is no reason to be thankful for gentrification. Gentrification destroys cities, and is responsible for the wholesale homogenization of culture. If you are thankful for the state of affairs in SF, you are part of the problem.

This is a really cool concept, but one that is totally impossible. In the actual world, few things are truly independent. Even if you could find 33 binary questions that did not correlate with each other at all, you still run the risk of having multiple people yield the same 33 answers.

Just because two things aren't statistically linked does not mean that they will never overlap.

In my opinion, Apple receives way too much credit for their retail experience.

Going to the Apple Store is almost always an unpleasant experience. First, the small number of locations means that getting to an Apple Store can be onerous. Moreover, the majority of stores are massively overcrowded. On weekends, I literally can't get into my local Apple Store because of overcrowding. There are simply too many people to physically navigate the store. Imagine riding a crowded public bus. That is the level of crowding.

Moreover, the setup of the Apple Store encourages people to linger and leisurely use the devices. In practice, this means that people (particularly little kids) will spend upwards of thirty minutes playing some asinine game on the display devices. There are no limits enforced, and the chronic overcrowding means that even getting to look at a device is difficult.

If you happen to go during a weekday when there isn't overcrowding, you get overwhelmed by Apple staff. Effectively every time I enter an Apple Store I get accosted by no less than three employees, not to mention the "concierge" that guards the entryway to the store. When shopping, I don't want to be berated by staff. It's very reminiscent of the episode of The Office where Dwight gets fired and takes up a position at Staples. When a woman comes into his department to shop, Dwight stands five feet away from her and just glares at her the entire time.

Deciding whether or not to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a device is already mentally taxing; having Apple staff constantly interject does not make the experience any easier. I don't think I've ever heard anyone I know speak positively of an experience at the Apple Store, particularly because they feel absolutely overwhelmed by the way the staff treat them.

I'm not sure if these problems are pervasive or specific only to my local store, but in my experience, the notion that the service at the Apple Store is "magical" is downright laughable.

I would argue that it is. What portion of iPad owners have ever spent any money on software or peripheral devices? Probably less than half. Now, what portion of them would be willing to shell out $50 for a stylus? I just can't imagine that a non-negligible proportion of iPad owners would be willing to spend that much on an accessory.

Also keep in mind that the current price point is "introductory" and will increase in the future.

I agree. Much of the copy on that page is simply comical. For instance, the marketing describes the Bluetooth pairing process as "as easy as falling in love."

I don't understand how companies can publish copy that is this absurd and expect people to do anything but laugh at them.

Pencil seems like an fairly interesting idea, but it's priced in a really odd way. The $50 price point puts it well out of reach consumer and hobbyist users. Despite this, Pencil and Paper are not as robust as, nor ate they priced comparably to, professional digital drawing tools like Wacom's system.

Pencil precludes the casual demographic who just wants to doodle in their free time or take notes with its high price, but does not cater to the group of elite professionals who would be willing to cough up a substantial amount of money for drawing tools.

I just don't understand who this is for.

Coin is a very neat idea that will be hampered by many practical limitations.

How durable will it be? I routinely neglect to take my wallet out of my pocket, and end up putting it through the wash. Can Coin survive total immersion in water for an hour? What happens when my dog invariably decides to chew up my wallet? What happens when I drop my Coin in sand?

Moreover, the cost of a Coin becoming inoperable is far greater than that of a traditional card. Worst case scenario, my bank will send me a new card within a few days, which will cost nothing because the cost of manufacturing plastic cards is negligible. If my Coin breaks, I have to shell out another $100. Unless Coin is as indestructible as plastic cards (which is highly doubtful simply because the mechanics and circuitry in Coin create a level of complexity far greater than that of a piece of solid plastic), It will end up costing me more in the long run.

What about security? If I were to lose a plastic card, the maximum risk I'm exposed to is a single account being defrauded. If my Coin falls into the wrong hands, the bad guy has absolutely everything.

In a perfect world, Coin would be great. Unfortunately, the limitations of modern life and commerce make Coin impractical and even dangerous.

Honestly, I just don't get Soylent. What is the purpose?

As a health measure? The market for weight-loss shakes and other dietary solutions is saturated, and most of it appears to be complete shit. Dietary shakes are easy to come by, and are almost universally reviled because they don't work as advertised and taste disgusting.

Is Soylent a supposed to be a remedy for malnutrition? Why is drinking a bunch of vitamins a better option than taking a dietary supplement? How does Soylent account for the fact that nutrient absorption is less efficient in artificial supplements? Why not just eat quality, healthy human food?

But, far and away the worst and most appalling argument is that soylent is "convenient," and that it's beneficial to people who "don't have time to eat." I'm sorry, but if you can't find time to eat human food, the issue is your schedule, not the food. Correct me if I'm wrong, but eating is pretty fucking important. If you are in a position where feeding yourself actual sustenance is inconvenient, then there is a probably a severe deficiency with your schedule and a problem with your priorities.

I love CSS's pseudo-selectors. In my opinion, they are the best part of CSS3 and are generally great.

However, I think the author's jabs at CSS pre-processors and their adherents are unsubstantiated and a little unfair. I don't see how using SASS precludes you from knowing about or using complex selectors. As the author points out, SASS is merely an efficient and more intuitive way to write classic CSS. The good parts of CSS are still the good parts of SASS, and by definition every feature of CSS is a feature of SASS. It doesn't really follow that using SASS predisposes you to be less knowledgeable about regular CSS.

If anything, people using SASS likely use many more complex styles and work on larger projects, and are probably know more about and actively use more aspects of CSS than do people who don't have a need for SASS.

From the About page:

We use the highest quality shirts and deliver them with the most affordable pricing.

Does this imply that the $25 price is the lowest possible point at which the OP can attain reasonable margins? If so, they really need to reevaluate their infrastructure, as $25 for a text-only tee shirt is very, very high, and the OP is likely being ripped off by their suppliers.

Given the price, I have doubts about the willingness of potential customers to purchase shirts of this sort. The precedent for comparable services like Teespring and even for individual shirt vendors seems to be $10 to $20, substantially lower than what the OP is charging.

Other than the pricing, I'm not entirely sure whether hashtags would make suitable shirts. Hashtags tend to be highly ephemeral, and most cease to be relevant within a few days. Most people keep shirts for years, and thus would be likely be wearing these shirts for a period far longer than the life of the hashtag. It's a novel idea, but at the end of the day it's trying to turn what are highly transient cultural artifacts into something permanent.

This is a deal-breaker for me, and I immediately delete my account on any service that attempts this type of bullshit.

If a service makes me log in to unsubscribe from their spam, they can be assured that it will be the last time I ever log into their service.

I don't understand how this is supposed to bolster Tesla's image.

The fact that the car alerted him to the fact that it was going to combust does not mean that it is OK that the car combusted.

At this point it is way too volatile for use as as long-term wealth storage. The current state of Bitcoing only makes it suitable for high-risk, high-reward investing, which is not conducive to saving.

I own half of a Bitcoin. I purchased about two weeks ago. In the intervening time, the value of Bitcoin has gone up 40%. I can't complain, and I'll probably buy more in the near future. It is somewhat disappointing that they can't be used for anything, though. Without practical applications, Bitcoin is subject to massive volatility and doesn't have any sort of foundation to prevent against collapse of the market.

Incidentally, I also developed a Bitcoin Twitter ticker. If anyone would like to keep up with hourly prices via Twitter, I suggest that you check it out.

http://twitter.com/bitcoin_ticker

Probably the same as if the officer hand't bought the shoplifter $100 of groceries with their own money.

I dislike the comparison that the OP draws between scholarships and the given example of the officer buying food for the shoplifter. In the case of the latter, the officer is providing an additional opportunity for the woman by purchasing groceries that she otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford. In the case of the OP, the users making artificial accounts receive exactly the same service at the same price, and so no opportunity is being generated.

That combined with T-Mobile's $30-per-month unlimited plan makes for a ridiculous value.

http://www.gadgetreview.com/2013/06/t-mobile-has-a-secret-pl...

Not to mention people who are price-sensitive. The iPhone and leading Android phones are very expensive, especially considering that they are locked into an exorbitant contract with a carrier. The Nexus 5 allows people to get first-class hardware and software at half the market price of most other phones and frees them from the tyranny of contracts.

For context, if our family of three were to buy only Nexus 5's and switch to T-Mobile's $30-per-month, unlimited-everything plan, we would save almost $100 per month over our current situation.

Contracts are an atrocity, and the Nexus program is the best way to circumvent them while still using superior hardware.

iOS 7 is pretty universally loathed among people I know...

I have been an iPhone user for upwards of three years, and used an iPod touch for two years prior to that. I hate iOS 7. The aesthetic is too bare and feels excessively simplistic, and the new animations have totally stripped me of the ability to perform multiple operations in quick succession. The OS looks worse and performs worse. (Not to mention the sheer volume of bugs that Apple neglected to fix. I might be able to tolerate iOS 7 if it hadn't broken the built-in dictionary, my lock button, and myriad other things. Unfortunately, it's been weeks and Apple has not issued fixes for any of these bugs.)

I've polled a fairly large number of students at my high school, and not one has reflected favorably on the change from iOS 6 to iOS 7. I'm not sure how other demographics feel about iOS 7, but the opinion of my cohort seems to be overwhelmingly negative.

iOS 7 has caused a major regression in the functionality and enjoyability of Apple's mobile products, and I think a lot of people are unhappy with the changes Apple made.

I've been eagerly anticipating the Nexus 5 since the day of iOS 7's release. Nothing will make me happier than to never have to tolerate iOS 7 again.

It seems as though iOS 7 was inordinately buggy when it shipped. With iOS 6, apps would crash multiple times per day, but iOS 7 is an entirely new level of buggy-ness. Springboard crashes regularly. My lock button stopped working after upgrading (I've researched this, and apparently this is an issue that has been known about since Beta 2. Evidently, Apple never got around to fixing it.) The phone routinely becomes unresponsive. The Apple TV version of iOS 7 was bricking devices and had to be withdrawn by Apple. This is not a functional operating system.

iOS 7 is a complete and utter embarrassment for Apple. It was nowhere near ready to ship, and it's become apparent that Apple's hardware release schedule dictated the iOS 7 ship date, and compelled Apple to release iOS 7 prematurely.

Although I've long been a fan of the iPhone due to its superior app ecosystem, I simply can't take my chances with another Apple mobile product. Apple has forced me into a situation whereby I can either elect to continue using a phone that does not turn on and off and crashes perpetually, or use a functional Android device with an inferior ecosystem. Basically any sane person would chose the latter.

iOS 7 was in no way ready to ship, and is still a major regression from iOS 6 even after several subsequent minor releases. The fact that Apple released such an incomplete OS to millions of users really makes me question their judgement.

I understand that conventional smoke detectors can be irritating, but I still don't see how an experience like that is worth an extra $110. I suppose the calculus is different for people with far more money, but for most people, I don't think that smoke detectors pose a large enough annoyance to warrant buying the Nest.

More like 6x to 7x the price. The precedent for detectors seems to be $20. Local fire departments also routinely hand them out for free.

I have. I identify the detector and the batteries. It's not particularly hard.

Nest is very adept at charging large amounts of money for solutions to small problems. Dealing with the shortcomings of modern smoke detectors is a minor annoyance at best, and (at least for me) isn't worth anything even remotely approaching what Nest is charging. Keep in mind that this detector provides no increase in safety, and if anything is a regression because it postpones alerting the user to prevent the annoyance of false positives. You are paying only for convenience.

Adequate smoke detectors can be purchased for $20. Is the minor increase in convenience really worth shelling out over 6 times that amount, possibly at the expense of safety?

(EDIT: as others have pointed out, this also serves as a carbon monoxide detector. The implication from the product page is that this product is designed to be placed on the ceiling. What could possibly go wrong?)