wooster

"As far as I know, nobody said that"

The OP linked to an article which said that, which sourced from the article referenced by the link to the rebuttal I posted.

"And it is obvious, no point is arguing against that."

No, it's really not obvious. Apple made very specific claims about the functionality of their product. Unless you can prove those claims wrong, you're just spreading a conspiracy theory.

Clearly.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/27/no-nsa-iph...

Flagging due to him pointing to an obviously fake story to support his position.

The OS X dev community is much smaller than the iOS community. For questions like those above, I'd suggest the cocoa-dev mailing list:

https://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev

I had my own office, complete with door, the entire time I was at Apple. It was fantastic. I've worked in open plan offices before and since, and I vastly prefer individual offices.

I had to reread your original comment a couple of times to get what you were saying. I think you might be getting down-voted because of writing style and confusion more than anything else.

I don't understand why you think this is unusual. At least in the areas I've lived in (LA, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Seattle, …) it's been very common.

They've had some problems with muggings, but I haven't seen more panhandling than usual near them.

For anyone else confused, as I was, by the Everest trek photos: these were taken with tripods and not with the new Trekker gear.

Flagging because this isn't even close to everything you need to know, and the treatment of ISOs is overly simplistic.

As others have mentioned in the thread, David Weekly's guide is a much better resource.

  Since zebra mussels became established in Lake Erie, 
  water clarity has increased from 6 inches to 30 feet 
  in some areas. … One drastic impact of the zebra mussel
  invasion is the near extinction of native American 
  unionid clams in Lake St. Clair and in the western 
  basin of Lake Erie.

http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/factsheets/2000-6%20Zebra%20...

Not since Ex parte Milligan (1866), AFAIK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan

The Apple Remote app is a decent, but not great, alternative to the Apple TV remote.

Flagging. Lifting someone else's idea and also their name for that idea seems sketchy.

Ooh, more data from the Housing Inventory reports [0] by the Planning Department.

Net gain or loss of units:

  * 2000: 1,797
  * 2001: 1,779
  * 2002: 2,408
  * 2003: 2,496
  * 2004: 1,487
  * 2005: 1,855
  * 2006: 1,914
  * 2007: 2,567
  * 2008: 3,263
  * 2009: 3,454
  * 2010: 1,230
  * 2011: 269

[0] http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1663

The numbers of units being built in the linked SF Business Times article [0] seems to contradict those from the SF Chronicle [1].

Business Times:

    Nearly 8,000 new apartments, mostly in mid-rise and high-rise buildings, 
    will come on line between now and 2015 — 3,498 in 2015 alone. It’s more 
    new rental housing than was built in the last 15 years combined, according 
    to real estate research firm Polaris Pacific.

SF Chronicle:

    Largely in response to the city's growing technology sector, 22,000 residential 
    units are in various stages of approval and construction. … Since 2008, only 
    about 1,710 units were built each year, compared with an average of 2,220 each 
    year between 2004 and 2008, according to the department.

If the average was 2,200 housing units built each year between 2004 and 2008, that's 11,000 housing units. Granted the Business Times is using apartments as units, while the planning department uses housing units.

Looking at the planning department data [1], there are currently 28,010 housing units approved and 3,930 under construction. The total pipeline is 43,580 units. For the previous reports they provide, we've got:

  * Q1, 2007: 9,305 filed, 4,736 approved, 4,978 under construction, 30,002 total
  * Q3, 2007: 10,708 filed, 5,005 approved, 6,134 under construction, 31,761 total
  * Q4, 2007: 20,890 filed, 4,570 approved, 6,790 under construction, 40,370 total
  * Q1, 2008: 34,510 filed, 4,560 approved, 7,520 under construction, 53,980 total
  * Q2, 2008: 32,370 filed, 4,780 approved, 7,480 under construction, 51,470 total
  * Q2, 2009: 34,570 filed, 6,200 approved, 6,510 under construction, 54,610 total
  * Q4, 2009: 30,370 filed, 8,220 approved, 1,320 under construction, 46,600 total
  * Q2, 2010: 30,780 filed, 5,870 approved, 1,480 under construction, 43,780 total
  * Q3, 2010: 20,710 filed, 16,690 approved, 1,180 under construction, 44,100 total
  * Q1, 2011: 15,610 filed, 22,590 approved, 1,730 under construction, 45,820 total
  * Q2, 2011: 7,620 filed, 29,760 approved, 1,820 under construction, 45,760 total
  * Q3, 2011: 7,620 filed, 30,280 approved, 1,990 under construction, 46,620 total
  * Q1, 2012: 6,180 filed, 27,670 approved, 3,990 under construction, 42,520 total
  * Q2, 2012: 6,940 filed, 28,060 approved, 4,220 under construction, 43,280 total

So, data-wise, it's not clear this is as big a construction boom as it's made out to be. As an SF resident, however, I've never seen so much housing under construction, so maybe it's just more visible?

Does anybody else have any data?

[0] http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2013/0...

[1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-apartment-construc...

[2] http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1691

Ping pong tables cost about ~$150. That seems pretty cheap for stress relief and entertainment.

I'd be careful not to read too much data into tiny signals like whether a company has a ping pong table.

Almost all startup offices I've been in have high levels of low frequency noise. I have other headphones (including the ATH-M50s), but I've taken to using noise canceling headphones more often than any of my others. You may be underestimating their benefit.

By that standard, one of the best restaurants in NYC is above a Whole Foods and adjacent to a food court.

Amusingly, as I'm typing this, the author's site is down: http://evbogue.com/

FWIW, TechStars was great about this. David Cohen and Andy Sack gave fantastic advice to our round (Seattle '12). I've been doing this for awhile, have read the relevant books and heard a lot second-hand from people who've raised a lot of money, but having mentors give great guidance around this from personal and networked experience was leaps and bounds better.

Some more data on lawns:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Lawn/

Which estimates around 31.6 million acres of lawn in the US.

Broken on an iPhone running 6.1.4 on Safari and embedded webviews, for me. There also appear to be some resources which never finish loading.

He says:

  We have never received a blanket request or court order from 
  any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk

Not that they don't provide information in bulk. The next paragraph comes closer:

  When governments ask Facebook for data, we review each request
  carefully to make sure they always follow the correct processes
  and all applicable laws, and then only provide the information 
  if is required by law.

Which in an ungenerous reading leaves plenty of wiggle room. eg, "When governments ask", not "When governments order us".

Personally, I believe Larry and Zuck, but the statements themselves are really weird.

The climber in the gif, BTW, is Jyoti Raju:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyoti_Raju

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPN3gLVDsOY

As a SoftLayer customer of ~5 years, this has me pretty bummed. I'd hate to see SoftLayer's straightforward product offerings get subsumed by IBM's enterprise-driven culture.

That's not the page in question.

That's not the page the blog post is talking about. The page the blog is talking about is the one people are sent to after they vouch for someone who has filled out that page.

Actually, I just had this happen to me today.

From my perspective, you fooled me into using my professional network to advertise your service. You sent an email which purported to be me, put words in my mouth, and made me look like an ass to my colleagues.

I had to go look in my LinkedIn inbox and send out apology emails to everyone you messaged on my behalf.

> (in white writing) on black backgroud)

In tiny text. That I didn't notice until it was too late.

> and let you see the message

I didn't see the message beforehand. It isn't visible by default. I didn't realize what you were really going to do until I Googled for "FounderDating spam", which turned up the above article. That article, by the way, was submitted by one of the people you spammed, and who I wrote an email to to apologize.

> it's also completely opt-in - no tricks where you can't find the "x".

It's actually opt-out, not opt-in. And by opt-out, I presume that means I should've marked all of your default selections as not "entrepreneurial".

> not send or choose who they send a message to

It's not clear from the UI that picking a person sends a message to them.

> There is nothing sneaky about it.

In my opinion, it's downright deceptive.

> there isn't much we can do about that.

You could try not abusing my trust.

"And remember, this is just the first six months of life--the available studies show these sorts of effects diminishing as the child gets older."

Sure. Your area of concern seems to be the over-selling of breast-feeding in the developed world. Mine is the over-selling of infant formula in the developing world, including China, to the point of people never breastfeeding their infants. The above was a fairly cursory attempt to find a few examples of recent, post advertising ban, research on the subject.

By the way, you may not be aware of this, but the Daily Mail is a tabloid and the author of:

http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/32/4/595.full.pdf+html

is a professor of Women's Studies.