Am I the only one thinking this is all rather convenient?
As any good PR team should do (and I know Apple's are excellent), after the big backlash they experienced over the GoogleVoice debacle, they are now slowly but surely turning it around.
OK, I am cynical, but using the old "you didn't understand my inflection" to win an argument is something I used against my sister - when I was 10.
I was hoping this was going to be a real breakdown and analysis of why things turned around for this blogger. For example, topics he wrote about then which he doesn't anymore or how his user base has changed compared to then.
Unfortunately, it lacks any real content and depth - it may as well have been written for Reader's Digest.
I enjoyed going through this list - so I thought you might too!
Here are a few to wet your taste buds:
- a thought-provoking one: Deorum iniuriae Diis curae. ("Offences to the gods are the concern of the gods." - Perhaps very apt in these times of religious tension.)
- a kind of meta-proverb: Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. ("Anything said in Latin sounds profound." )
- a weird one: Temeas simium meum. ("Hold my monkey!" - Eh?)
Your example implicitly means that you do agree someone needs to be made liable for the child through 'obligatory supervision' - because if you don't do that, you will be accountable.
You say 'as long as parents do not violate'. Indeed, as long as you do what is required to ensure nothing goes wrong ("bonus pater familias"), but an accident still happens, then society/German Law accepts no one is liable.
Your argument seems to point more to: How do you define someone as liable and how do you enforce it?
I don't want to forego a stimulating intelectual discourse, but isn't it obvious?
Replace 'autonomous machine' with 'child' and it is clear a parent is responsible. For autonomous machines these are the owners. Machines may be autonomous, but if a real person is liable, then I am sure there will be plenty of checks and tests done to prevent any disasters.
In fact, the results of the accounting scandals not so long ago may be a good template. Investors were fully dependent on this autonomous, faceless, financial machine to churn out profits. That blew up in their face and they had no-one to blame. One result was the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley which set, amongst other things, criminal penalties on individuals.
This was submitted 561 days ago (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=109654) but I think it deserves a repost. I have been lurking here a while and only just discovered it. There are some real gems (stories/discussions) to be explored this way.
I started looking at 'Users with Most Points per Submission' and lost an hour before I knew it. Oh, and I guess if you want to rig the system, then 'Top Domains by Points per Submission' could be of help.
Maybe some of you haven't seen this either so I thought I'd share.
OK, it is just a bit of fun and maybe not very HN-like, but I can imagine it did take quite a bit of thought to make and it is a powerful representation.
If only every business/technical illustration I saw at work was as clear and concise as this was...
1. Doesn't every phone these days have a voice trigger to call someone? My old Nokia has and it works pretty well.
2. It seems to require some touching to use. Tap to run app. Tap to start recording. Tap after a status update. Tap tap tap... I thought this was voice-controlled?
3. Searching the internet using your voice doesn't seem that practical. At least by looking at how I use search - using wildcards and such. So it may be a bit restrictive.
4. The voice layer on top of Google and Yahoo will, of course, require a hotspot. Not always available and it may be expensive.
5. I may see this being useful for disabled people.
6. How accurate is voice recognition and pickup really?
7. Is there no chance that Google Voice can become a competitor in the future? They have all the voice recognition expertise - just look at voicemail to text feature. Potential competition from Google must be considered.
8. It doesn't appear to be especially speedy.
In conclusion, it is not that appealing to me but seeing as it is free to try basic features, I may try it out anyway.
That is a pretty poorly written article with some broad generalisations based on 'a five-minute tour of sites in my bookmarks list'.
The auther states 'You don’t really know what you should put in it'. Umm, I would think an 'About page' is pretty obvious: Contains meta-data relating to the site.
It is part of a bigger whole, so if the rest isn't that good, chances are the 'About Page' isn't that great either...
EDIT: Had a quick poke around. Note, I did not look at your previous iteration. This review reads more as a narrative because I am just flicking between tabs to add comments.
It looks good. I must say my personal taste is a little more minimalist and so I find your site a little busy. At the top there are lots of options to choose from. I wonder if you can't cut down on or combine some of those buttons. Oh, I know what those buttons do now, they filter the list. Was a little un-intuitive for me.
Following on from my previous paragraph, why not get rid of all that text starting "Iterative feedback..." in the middle and just have a separate 'about' page? It takes up space between the list and the filters you can apply. Oh, you do, have a separate about page ("What's a Launch?"). Hmm, you need to update screenshots there. Oh, sorry there is a third description of what Launchly is in the footer when I press 'About Launchly'. Maybe all of these disparate descriptions can be combined?
Hmm, when I hover over vote up/down a pop-up appears which disappears before I can move my mouse pointer back over it. Sometimes I can get it to stay and perform an action - mostly I can't.
Additionally, I may be a little slower in this post-lunch state, but it isn't that clear to me at a glance what the site offers. Can I build a site using your tooling? Why do I need you to launch my creation?
Other question raised in my head: Why, for example, is 'Ask HN' not the best place to get feedback and exposure for my site?
Looking at your pricing - seems a little expensive for me. How can I be assured the reviewers are going to give me good feedback? Could I not better spend my USD 40 independently on specific feedback from my site's targeted usergroup?
On the whole, I like the site, it just feels a little disjointed here and there and the message of what you do is a little lost in the clutter.
I don't think this has as much to do about porn, than about being able to explain what you do by linking to a known entity.
To create a powerful elevator pitch you try pack as much meaning/punch into every word you utter. The semantics of the word 'Facebook', for example, conjure up networking, friends, messaging, profiles.
Now, how successful this kind of marketing/branding is I cannot tell you in numbers.
Anecdotally, though, I can say I prefer people get right to the point. So, if the app can be compared to something I already know, then please don't wrap it in bullshit and just tell me.
It is not OK for others to smudge/grease/smear/taint/foul or otherwise violate your screen. No matter how expensive the screen is or who owns it.
I used to be one of those until I forced myself to take a pencil everywhere for if I could not hold back the urge. This keeps the screen clean and makes pointing more accurate.
My advice: Don't feel bad about telling them to back off - they may not even know this is not done. And if they do it again, compare it to if they had to use a (sweaty) friend's keyboard or mobile phone. So, limiting possible exposure to this is in everyone's favour.
I think your last sentence "and recognize a boo-boo, it would be nice to be able to correct my mistake to avoid a permanent record of my foolishness"
How can you make a mistake in a comment? If you don't mean what you write don't post it... And don't worry about people calling you foolish (I am sure there is a famous quote for that to put it more eloquently).
Also, note that there is no post preview when you submit so being able to modify after you post fills that functionality gap.
I think the main reason is to keep the context of a discussion in a thread.
Turning your question around: Why would you want to modify a comment after one hour?
Read your comment before posting and be happy with it at that time of posting. If you come to new insights later then post another comment. There's no shame in that.
What do you mean "starring/flagging items for later"?
1. To read an article later as you have no time now.
2. To save a read article for later reference.
I use google reader, so:
For 1. I just keep items unread (key 'm'). This means I keep all my 'unread' and 'read-for-later' items in the same list in the same view in the reader.
For 2. I do not flag/star anything for reference as I trust Google Reader's search options to find stuff in the feeds. Google will find things way more easily than any scheme I think of to keep stuff referenced.
For your question: Why use 'star' or 'flag' at all as they have inherent semantic meaning depending on the person.
Why not leverage that to its fullest and just say 'marked/unmarked' and leave it up to the user to define what it means.
I am using HN to understand from (hopefully) other tech professionals if they have found a way to leverage Twitter. (And have read some good comments already in this thread.)
Twitter is very real-time, that is its power and a core part of its functionality.
So, your 6 generalised analogies on not having time for X misses the point.
As any good PR team should do (and I know Apple's are excellent), after the big backlash they experienced over the GoogleVoice debacle, they are now slowly but surely turning it around.
OK, I am cynical, but using the old "you didn't understand my inflection" to win an argument is something I used against my sister - when I was 10.