Ive worked at place with a 1 : 20 skilled to code monkey ratio and its really not good. One person cannot make up for or even mitigate 20 shit developers who don't understand the impact of their decisions. That said, not everyone who is in their 20s is a code monkey either, maybe you could manage a 1:20 ratio if all your young developers were skilled enough but those people are valuable and they figure that out quickly. Before you know it you aren't saving that much money or you are loosing your skilled younger developers to firms that will pay them better.
Aren't most franchises based on areas. Like I cant start a McDonalds franchise across the street from your established store because they don't allow that. Will Amazon provide any protection to people who buy into this franchise like limiting the number of them in a given metro area?
Its only an objective measure if it actually correlates to success. In the case of the SAT and ACT it doesn't. Grades are a much more accurate indicator of success at American universities than these exams.
Now maybe in Denmark they have some much better exam that works wonderfully, or maybe you have just accepted that the tests are working properly even if they aren't. Many people on this site are speaking out in support of SATs when actual studies have been done proving that they are not an effective indicator of success... just because you have always done it that way doesn't mean its the right thing to do
and again, his evidence is worth more than yours which is literally non existant... post some real evidence that these tests are predictive of anything or shut the fuck up
and now you are making unsupported statements... how about some actual data to back up that useless assertion that the tests work... maybe from someone other than the companies that make money off the testing.
Which is also horseshit. Yeah your app gets removed if you don't update it to support new deveices and there are moving minimum standards but converting your app to swift is not on of those. As an iOS developer, I'm not aware of any feature that you can only access in swift and certainly not one that is required for staying in the store but even if their was, swift and objc interoperate. Maybe you would have to write a class or 2 in swift to support some new bling (that wasn't available to your app before at all) but you don't have to re-write your entire app to do it.
Yeah, apple forcing you to adapt to new phones and features means you have to keep actively developing software to stay on the store... for some developers that might be an annoyance and it may not be worth updating an old app that isn't making you money. But that has nothing to do with swift vs objective c.
Even if everyone agrees with you that forcing the USPS to prefund pensions is a good idea, bitching about their finances when they have to go through this huge change is dumb, if anything we should be expanding their services so that they are more profitable. Including lost cost banking services would be a good place to start.
They don't provide the same quality of service as the other carriers though, they are cheaper and thats great and on the volume that Amazon needs they are probably a good option (hence the reason Amazon uses them) but if they cost as much as Fedex, but loose more packages then nobody is ever going to use them.
Plus the service provided by the USPS is not nearly as reliable as the other providers. My previous employer tried moving from Fedex to a Fedex/USPS last mile solution and the result was a huge increase in missed deliveries. For amazon this might not be a big deal, the cost of replacing the lost items might not be higher than the saving of using USPS but for my employer, with a limited inventory of items that are produced in one off batches, it was unacceptable. If the cost of USPS goes up and the quality of service does not, it might not have to get more expensive than Fedex before Amazon decides its not worth it anymore.
Personally, probably not, but what about 10 bucks... what if its an app I only need rarely... what if I'm a cheep skate. People used to do this same thing with demo software back on the PC but back then you could hide a file somewhere or flip a switch in the registry or something to indicate a previous install. Why would a developer go to those lengths if people weren't working around their demo protection?
Without some actual enforcement what you have is shareware, which is fine but isn't always a good model for people who want to make a living making software.
No, its not. I gave you an example for which feature limits doesn't really work. It does for some types of apps but for others a time limited full featured app is really the best way to show a user what they will be paying for. Making a GPS app that has some cool features but not letting anyone try those out before paying isn't a good marketing tool, I don't know if your feature will work well enough for me.
Just because the app you make can be marketed effectively using feature limits or watermarks on outputs or whatever doesn't mean that everyone else's can and thanks to sandboxing its not practical for the developer to create a time limited app, if apple would even allow it, because the user can delete it and install a new copy at any time
You can do this with in app purchases on iOS, and plenty of developers do but there are some types of apps that don't work well with this model (try my GPS app that gets you 80% of the way to your destination... pay $5 to get the full version) and are much better with a time boxed full featured demo, but you would have to make it so that the user cannot just delete the app and download it again.
The thing is, if these are independent developers, how much does their voice really matter. What percentage of app store downloads do these folks represent, vs the number of downloads of apps from larger corporations. There are a lot of apps on the store that could vanish tomorrow and nobody would even notice so it kind of depends on what the software portfolio these developers represent. Sure, they can go to android but if they are struggling to make money on the iPhone it doesn't seem likely that they will do all that much better on the play store.
That said they do have some valid gripes. Free trials would be ideal for certain types of software but when you can just delete and re-install an app to get around it then it isn't all that useful, leaving developers to find ways to distribute locked version of their software with an in app purchase to unlock additional functionality. Good for some things (play the first 5 levels of my new game) but bad for other things (try out this GPS software that will only get you 80% of the way to your destination until you unlock it).
yeah like marijuana use... the way its more predominant in white communities than in black but the arrests for blacks is at a higher rate and the severity of punishment is higher... oh, wait, thats the opposite.
I guess that depends on how you a measuring competency among people who don't yet work for you (in your example anyway). If you are ignoring race and sex but are using other indicators that are simply standins for race and sex (went to a women's university or a predominantly black university, home address in a minority part of town) then you are ending up with the same problem, you just changed the way the bias is introduced.
We don't ask for ID now, last time I bought tickets I didn't have to give the name of everyone who was going with me, I didnt even have to decide who was going with me until right before the show.
If scalping is really this huge problem (and it isn't, certainly not for ticketmaster who still gets paid... shows still get sold out and the inability to get tickets just increases what people are willing to spend the next time around) then we would be tying ID to tickets already, it really wouldn't be that hard.
This doesn't serve anyones interest on the surface of it so it is probably worth looking at other ways that people might be benefiting from this scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
You say this like its a bug and not a feature
Ive worked at place with a 1 : 20 skilled to code monkey ratio and its really not good. One person cannot make up for or even mitigate 20 shit developers who don't understand the impact of their decisions. That said, not everyone who is in their 20s is a code monkey either, maybe you could manage a 1:20 ratio if all your young developers were skilled enough but those people are valuable and they figure that out quickly. Before you know it you aren't saving that much money or you are loosing your skilled younger developers to firms that will pay them better.
Aren't most franchises based on areas. Like I cant start a McDonalds franchise across the street from your established store because they don't allow that. Will Amazon provide any protection to people who buy into this franchise like limiting the number of them in a given metro area?
https://www.linkedin.com/searc...
I can't believe linkedin would Dox all these people
collecting? Its on a god damn list on linked in and they all put themselves on that list.
https://www.linkedin.com/searc...
I did fucking swimmingly on my standardized tests, probably helped get me into the school I attended. That doesn't make it accurate.
You could try googling too, or reading the fucking article but you wont so I'll leave a link here just for you
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/e...
Its only an objective measure if it actually correlates to success. In the case of the SAT and ACT it doesn't. Grades are a much more accurate indicator of success at American universities than these exams.
Now maybe in Denmark they have some much better exam that works wonderfully, or maybe you have just accepted that the tests are working properly even if they aren't. Many people on this site are speaking out in support of SATs when actual studies have been done proving that they are not an effective indicator of success... just because you have always done it that way doesn't mean its the right thing to do
and again, his evidence is worth more than yours which is literally non existant... post some real evidence that these tests are predictive of anything or shut the fuck up
and your non anecdotal evidence that the tests are worth something is where?
and now you are making unsupported statements... how about some actual data to back up that useless assertion that the tests work... maybe from someone other than the companies that make money off the testing.
Which is also horseshit. Yeah your app gets removed if you don't update it to support new deveices and there are moving minimum standards but converting your app to swift is not on of those. As an iOS developer, I'm not aware of any feature that you can only access in swift and certainly not one that is required for staying in the store but even if their was, swift and objc interoperate. Maybe you would have to write a class or 2 in swift to support some new bling (that wasn't available to your app before at all) but you don't have to re-write your entire app to do it.
Yeah, apple forcing you to adapt to new phones and features means you have to keep actively developing software to stay on the store... for some developers that might be an annoyance and it may not be worth updating an old app that isn't making you money. But that has nothing to do with swift vs objective c.
Why on earth would you rush to port your entire existing app to swift? The languages interoperate pretty well.
Right, I'll be over here holing my breath waiting for wages to finally go up.
When exactly did they get shut down? I heard a lot of talk about it but haven't seen anything about real changes. Got a link?
Even if everyone agrees with you that forcing the USPS to prefund pensions is a good idea, bitching about their finances when they have to go through this huge change is dumb, if anything we should be expanding their services so that they are more profitable. Including lost cost banking services would be a good place to start.
They don't provide the same quality of service as the other carriers though, they are cheaper and thats great and on the volume that Amazon needs they are probably a good option (hence the reason Amazon uses them) but if they cost as much as Fedex, but loose more packages then nobody is ever going to use them.
Plus the service provided by the USPS is not nearly as reliable as the other providers. My previous employer tried moving from Fedex to a Fedex/USPS last mile solution and the result was a huge increase in missed deliveries. For amazon this might not be a big deal, the cost of replacing the lost items might not be higher than the saving of using USPS but for my employer, with a limited inventory of items that are produced in one off batches, it was unacceptable. If the cost of USPS goes up and the quality of service does not, it might not have to get more expensive than Fedex before Amazon decides its not worth it anymore.
Personally, probably not, but what about 10 bucks... what if its an app I only need rarely... what if I'm a cheep skate. People used to do this same thing with demo software back on the PC but back then you could hide a file somewhere or flip a switch in the registry or something to indicate a previous install. Why would a developer go to those lengths if people weren't working around their demo protection?
Without some actual enforcement what you have is shareware, which is fine but isn't always a good model for people who want to make a living making software.
No, its not. I gave you an example for which feature limits doesn't really work. It does for some types of apps but for others a time limited full featured app is really the best way to show a user what they will be paying for. Making a GPS app that has some cool features but not letting anyone try those out before paying isn't a good marketing tool, I don't know if your feature will work well enough for me.
Just because the app you make can be marketed effectively using feature limits or watermarks on outputs or whatever doesn't mean that everyone else's can and thanks to sandboxing its not practical for the developer to create a time limited app, if apple would even allow it, because the user can delete it and install a new copy at any time
You can do this with in app purchases on iOS, and plenty of developers do but there are some types of apps that don't work well with this model (try my GPS app that gets you 80% of the way to your destination... pay $5 to get the full version) and are much better with a time boxed full featured demo, but you would have to make it so that the user cannot just delete the app and download it again.
The thing is, if these are independent developers, how much does their voice really matter. What percentage of app store downloads do these folks represent, vs the number of downloads of apps from larger corporations. There are a lot of apps on the store that could vanish tomorrow and nobody would even notice so it kind of depends on what the software portfolio these developers represent. Sure, they can go to android but if they are struggling to make money on the iPhone it doesn't seem likely that they will do all that much better on the play store.
That said they do have some valid gripes. Free trials would be ideal for certain types of software but when you can just delete and re-install an app to get around it then it isn't all that useful, leaving developers to find ways to distribute locked version of their software with an in app purchase to unlock additional functionality. Good for some things (play the first 5 levels of my new game) but bad for other things (try out this GPS software that will only get you 80% of the way to your destination until you unlock it).
yeah like marijuana use... the way its more predominant in white communities than in black but the arrests for blacks is at a higher rate and the severity of punishment is higher... oh, wait, thats the opposite.
I guess that depends on how you a measuring competency among people who don't yet work for you (in your example anyway). If you are ignoring race and sex but are using other indicators that are simply standins for race and sex (went to a women's university or a predominantly black university, home address in a minority part of town) then you are ending up with the same problem, you just changed the way the bias is introduced.
They already did, the fee was paid when the ticket was originally purchased.
We don't ask for ID now, last time I bought tickets I didn't have to give the name of everyone who was going with me, I didnt even have to decide who was going with me until right before the show.
If scalping is really this huge problem (and it isn't, certainly not for ticketmaster who still gets paid... shows still get sold out and the inability to get tickets just increases what people are willing to spend the next time around) then we would be tying ID to tickets already, it really wouldn't be that hard.
This doesn't serve anyones interest on the surface of it so it is probably worth looking at other ways that people might be benefiting from this scheme.