If you have content (not the entity using the handle "manigandham", of course, you "work in the online advertising space", so by definition you're not producing content I want to see) you can't afford to give away then make people pay for your content, period. It's a different world out there on the Internet, and it's not my job to tell you how to monetize your content.
Back in the print age, most magazines made most of their money selling space to advertisers. That's fine; readers paid the cover price (sometimes far below the publisher's cost to produce) and received ads (the bulk of the publisher's income) in return. Of course I'm oversimplifying this, but I'm not wrong.
Publishers today have access to essentially every eyeball on the planet for minimal cost; good for them! They can spread their messages to people who would have had no access to it 30 years ago (and 30 years ago, I was paying USD$12 to my local newsstand for a copy of Melody Maker; how much of that was to recoup the newstand's cost to get it from their distributor?). Their only need for advertising was to subsidize the cost of the content they actually produce.
The consumers have spoken; they have no perceived need for advertising. Lots won't understand that advertising is what actually pays for the content they read, but (and I really do blame the newspapers for putting all their content on the web for free at the start) content producers appear to be giving away their content for free. They "can't" put up paywalls because then they won't reach the maximal audience to which advertisers can peddle product. That's not my problem. I, as a consumer, can consume whatever is available to me (that's the other edge of labeling us "consumers", we're not your "customers" anymore).
Publishers can't have their cake and eat it too. If converting consumers to customers (possibly by cutting out their advertisers) is too expensive they're in the wrong business. I am indeed a user of Adblock Edge; I haven't purposefully clicked on an ad since 1997, have been disgusted by advertising since long before that, and now have a tool with which to remove that which I oppose. I've seen a number of sites that ask me to turn off my adblocker so they can make money; nope. I've seen a number of sites that refuse to serve me content until I turn it off; bye! You're in a global market; compete for my custom. Like I said, it's not up to me to tell you how.
If you delicate snowflakes can't nurture the next yo! to a $10B IPO because some anonymous asshole on the internet told you your idea was a piece of shit, maybe you shouldn't have a $10B IPO...
I just bought one of these myself, I'm expecting to receive it Tuesday. Your blog seems to confirm what I'm expecting out of the thing, and I think I made the right decision getting that instead of a Lumia 630. The biggest selling point to me was that I don't end up with Google, Apple, Microsoft following me around extracting as much information out of me as they can (of course, I'm failing this as soon as I go check my GApps mail).
Two questions: 1) How good is the web browser? That's the only app I care about having on my phone. 2) Can you tether your computer to it?
They're not in the same league at all; I can almost guarantee no one went out looking for "that goat game" and bought Goat Simulator by mistake when what they were actually looking for was Escape Goat. My seven- and nine-year-olds have had at least the $5 worth of fun out of GS that I paid for it. EG looks more like my kind of game but it's not available for my platform of choice.
Do you have the original Nexus 7 or the 2013 model? The two 2013s we have here are just fine after the upgrade to Lollypop(EDIT: striking the .1 because I have no idea what point version is on there now) but the previous model was practically unusable.
Re-read the post you downvoted (13 hours ago, it's true) and tell me you're not part of the problem. Whatshisface you're defending fixed the nonattribution part after many people called him out on both that and removing the part of the poem that didn't fit his agenda (which he "fixed" with an elipsis). I'm not the one being a hypocrite about this things. But I'm done arguing with y'all. HN is clearly slashdot next but with better article submissions.
"It's not because I thought the audience would be hostile, but I don't like those last few lines (mainly because of that turn), and think it's a better poem without them. Do you think it's better to leave it intact?"
This is the part with which I disagree. Let's just drop the nonattribution that you did indeed fix after the fact.
You said you edited the writing to alter its meaning. Is this not the case? While I was indeed blunt, I was not incorrect in pointing out you took the writing of a noted Lebanese author and removed the lines that offended your sensibilities.
Like I said, I am a nonbeliever. Misquoting (and that is indeed what you did when you removed those three lines) makes you look petty. Take care.
If you have hard budget caps and more than 30 employees, it means you're still not going to pay for it this year. This announcement just seems like bad timing. Or maybe they're gearing up for next year.
I'm glad the copyright appropriation will be worked on in some unspecified in-the-future release, according to a less than one hour old anonymous YC commenter, instead of being taken care of ahead of the official release.