I always thought every municipality should have something like a bug tracking system that citizens could use. Does anyone know if some administrations ever tried that ?
Yes, Citizen Request Management systems (another "CRM" acronym) are available, and widely implemented.
The leader in the market place is E-Gov Link. You can see it in action at Lowell, a suburb of Boston (who was featured in TFA).
Sure enough, potholes are on the Lowell CRM, as are a number of other types of citizen requests, like sidewalk repair, Graffiti issues, tree issues, etc.
They didn't ban the app. They said that the app is to be used to as you said - to help you determine what to confess. Which is exactly what the app was designed for, and what their earlier announcement said.
No change. No story here. Nothing to see here. Move along.
If my wife wasted $175 on an Android tablet thinking it would be like an iPad, she would find she was now an ex wife.
Besides what that says about your relationship and marital skills, you seem to make the assumption that my wife thought it would be like an iPad (or even that I might want an iPad!)
I got MORE than what I wanted, I love my Android pad, I use it every day, and it is exactly the device I expected and more. Why would I want to pay $499 for something I don't want, when $175 exceeds my every requirement, including many requirements that the iPad does not even meet?
Too bad that book was about Data General, and not DEC.
The book opens with a turf war between two computer design groups within Data General Corporation, a minicomputer vendor in the 1970s. Most of the senior designers are assigned the "sexy" job of designing the next generation machine, which will be done in North Carolina. Their project (code-named "Fountainhead") is to give Data General a machine to compete with the new VAX computer from Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), which is starting to take over the new 32-bit minicomputer market.
To Date not one tablet competitor has been able to meet apple's price point by a significant margin
I mentioned last November that I would get a notepad when the 10-inch Android models hit the $175 price point.
With that specification, I had one waiting for me under the Christmas Tree, 2010.
I laughed as I walked by the iPad displays in Best Buy over the next few days, with prices of $499, $599, $649. iPad, baaah. I could have had 3 Android pads for the price of the CHEAPEST iPad.
You guys just need to find wives who can shop! (maybe I should have ended that sentence at 7 words.)
Well I agree it doesn't look like much, but then again it's 10,000 years old. That's much older than most other such remnants in the world. Either way, it's definitely not natural. Humans did this.
How did you make the leap from "not natural" to "Humans did this"?
I swear, people are so dedicated to perpetuating this stupid myth that consumer electronic devices interfere with our brains. Its been so thoroughly debunked that it's almost in the same realm as anti-vaccination/autism beliefs (except it doesn't get people killed.)
People were never dedicated to perpetuating this stupid myth back in the old days. It's as if people have gotten stupider, as electronic devices have gotten more prevalent.
The general reason for buying an item (whether it's a stock or a motor scooter or a computer) is that you feel the value to you is greater than the cost to you.
The value may be in expected appreciation, or it may be in utility. Or it could be both. You may buy a classic computer because you believe it will appreciate in value, and because it works. You may buy a modern motor scooter because it gets you where you want it to go, and because you think it will someday be a classic (or at least worth more than what you paid minus the utility value). Many people buy Toyota cars because they hold up in value - so you get utility and resale.
Stocks have a different utility. A stock is just a portion of a company. If you buy a big enough portion, then you have a TON of utility. You can do lots of things with the company, including breaking it up for sale in pieces, take it in a new direction to make more money, etc. And you don't even need to own a majority of the company to receive this utility - as long as a majority of the shareholders are thinking alike.
Sorry, I am in support of the analogy, and it wasn't even mine. I see your point, but I think you are stretching it a bit.
Um... the point of owning the stock is that you can choose to sell the stock, hopefully for more money. My motorscooter, my computers, and my collection of erotic Hummel figurines don't pay dividends either, but I own them, which means I can sell them.
I know what you mean but that is an awful analogy. You can't do anything with stock but trade it, at least your motorscooter and computers have uses - which is most likely what you got them for anyway.
Wrong. I can borrow against stock (and even buy a motor scooter or a computer).
I can also buy more and more of the stock, so I eventually own 51% of the company. Then I can do a LOT of things. If the stock were selling for fractions of a penny, I most certainly would do that. If the stock were selling for $50/share, some huge company would certainly do that. That's why it's not so low priced.
Question: On Android, the apps are written in Java, and byte-compiled. This is certainly faster than JavaScript (which also has the penalty of download times as well as interpreted or compilation time when you run it). My question is, is Obj-C a byte compiled language like Java, or more like a fully compiled language like C?
I hate to show my ignorance publicly, but I've been under the impression that byte-compiled languages (like Java and Python) aren't "fully" compiled, as they still have certain "interpretive" capabilities (like garbage collection, heap management, and introspection in Python), whereas the traditional "compiled languages" would fully compile something into machine code with no interpreter involved, which is significantly faster than byte-compiled programs.
Is the performance of Obj-C more like Java, or more like a traditional compiled language (like C, or Cobol, Fortran, etc)? Scanning the Wikipedia page for Objective C, given that it has garbage collection, and some other run-time stuff included, I'm guessing that it performs similarly to Java.
I suspect it performs more like Java than compiled C, and I suspect that it's the object management (and maybe garbage collection or heap management) that is the bonus software that tends to slow it down.
As the article said, retail outlets buy back unused tickets - just say that you bought a whole bunch as give-aways, and here are the ones left over.
Well, the article actually said that he would ask first if they'd take back the unused tickets BEFORE he bought them. Then buy a whole roll, and return the unused ones.
I didn't mean to imply that animation is limited for web apps. Animation on a mobile web app is the same as animation on a web page. So you can do some flash stuff (if flash is supported on the smart phone), or you can do jQuery type of animation (collapsible menu items, highlight items, shake them, etc.) Probably the major difference (aside from the fact that you use different toolkits for your animation) is that the web app needs to download a lot of code to make the animation work, while the smart phone app downloads that code one time upon installation.
Regarding a news app, I think some of the issues that I mentioned still apply that you didn't include in your list.
- App Wake up: I think you might want to have breaking news alert you. Or anytime someone posts a story about the Pittsburgh Steelers or Egypt or your company name.
- Application Prominence and the "feel" of a native app. I think these two items are very critical. On my Smart Phone, I have a few icons on my main home screen that I use all the time. Slashdot's website isn't one of them. In order to get to slashdot, I need to start the browser, key in "sl", choose it from the list, and read the tiny slashdot website on my phone. If I had a mobile app installed, it would be on my desktop, one click and I would be reading articles and comments that are appropriate for my screen size. Reading Slashdot on a Droid X is a drag. (And Slashdot is essentially a news site, right?)
- Integrating with a camera: CNN just came out with an interactive app that allows you to snap a picture or a video, and immediately submit it to their site as "breaking news", along with a comment of what you are seeing. This was demo'd yesterday at Google's Honeycomb announcement. This would be pretty cumbersome to do using HTML5, flash, etc.
- Integration with other apps for a news site might be handy. Send this news story to a friend via MMS from my phone. Not sure how you'd do that with a web app.
- Something I left off of my analysis, above: Pay model is generally much better in the Mobile Apps. In-application purchases are a click away on the iPhone - it just shows up on your phone bill. And Honeycomb (Android 3.0) will have similar capability. How would you do in-app purchases on your Flash News app. Example - my local paper has a website (Gannett is the publisher), and users can purchase any high quality photos that are published on the site. You have to click through a complement payment process on their website - shopping cart, and all that. On a Smart Phone app, you could literally click-buy, click-confirm, and you own it.
My main conclusion with the exercise was to demonstrate that there's a place for mobile apps that web apps just won't fill. There are a group of people that will dig in their heels and say "Let's just stick with what we know (HTML, Flash, JavaScript) because there ARE certain advantages to that (support, using current knowledge, and application distribution being the main "pros"). But you'll end up getting blown away by a competitor that develops a mobile app.
I should clarify that my analysis is comparing web apps on mobile devices to smart phone apps.
So when I say that the technologies for web apps are less mature, for instance, I mean that there are certain things (like HTML 5 specifications for accessing Location, Camera, etc) that just aren't there yet. They are well specified in the APIs for Android apps and iOS apps, however.
What exactly can you do with an app that you can't do in a web browser with Flash, AJAX, or HTML5?
I did this analysis last week, and summarized it for management in a nice pretty table that I can't easily reproduce here. But I'll do my best:
Regarding Standards: Web Apps will generally run on multiple platforms, but the technology is less mature. Smart Phone Apps need to be developed for each platform (iPhone vs Android, for example)
Regarding App Wake-up: Web app User must start the app by visiting the web page. but Smart Phone apps, Once installed, app can run in background and be awoken from server. Alerts work much better for Smart Phones than Web Apps. Notifications for Web apps must be performed "out of band" (i.e. emails for instance)
Regarding App Distribution: Web App is immediately accessible, no download required. vs Smart Phone App must be pre-installed once from the market / app store; Users are adapting to the market paradigm
Regarding App prominence on device: Web Apps require URLs or Shortcuts through bookmarks and hyperlinks. Smart Phone apps, Once installed, app can be prominent on the device "desktop" (web apps: Out of sight / Out of mind)
Regarding App Updates: Web apps have Central Control and immediate. Smart Phone apps have Easy updates, but user not required to update. Implications are Multiple versions of the smart phone app may be in the wild, and cause unnecessary support. Work-around might be to put in a self-destruct/auto-update feature (i.e. if this version is "too out of date", then nothing works until you update)
Regarding Swipe input: Web app- not available. On Smart Phone app: available - Allows for more robust application control
Regarding Voice Input: Web app not available. On Smart Phone apps, Available on Android. Google has voice integrated into many of their applications already, and has an API for developers
Regarding Location awareness: web apps: available in HTML5 - not on all Smart Phone Browsers yet. On Smart Phones: Available to apps through API. Implications: GPS coordinates can be read by compliant browsers. It will be cumbersome (i.e. user will get prompted, and may have already disabled the feature.) With Android, user is prompted as to whether they want to allow Location Awareness when the app is downloaded, and then never bothered again.
Regarding Camera: Web apps, it's not available unless you use Flash and prompt. Smart Phone apps: Available to apps through API. Implications: Uploading a photo to a server through a web application is cumbersome.
Regarding Orientation sensing (portrait or landscape): Web apps: not available to application, but browser may self-adjust. Smart Phone apps: Available to apps through API. Implications: Application can adjust its display, based on portrait vs. landscape
Regarding Accelerometer: web apps: not available. Smart Phone apps: Available to apps through API. Implications: Motion by the user can be sensed via the GPS. This is helpful in games - not sure of the business application implications yet.
Regarding Local Persistent Storage: Web apps: Cookies: very small local storage. Other storage can be done via prompting the user to save a file. Smart Phone apps: Massive storage is available (such as Touchdown email storage). A smart phone app can have a good sized data repository for reference material, with quick access. A web app can have a HUGE data repository, with slower access.
Regarding File Displaying (pdf, for example): Web apps: Browsers handle various file displays seamlessly . Smart Phone apps: Can be done by opening the browser. Probably not a huge difference between the two approaches.
Regarding Speed of app: Web app: Subject to data transfer rates. Smart Phone app: Once downloaded, no data transfer to run the app. Implications: Smart Phone apps will tend to be as fast or faster than web apps.
Microsoft announced that they are developing Windows for the ARM chip, at the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2011. So I think the answer is no, not yet.
App store has over 350,000 apps. Are you telling me that there are more than 100,000 that are worth while? Not a chance.
Simply *randomly* select ten apps, and tell me how many you find interesting - worth spending more than - say - 5 minutes on, or even worth starting a second time! My experience says it's less than 1 in 10.
What's with the exotic asteroid names? Just once, I'd love to see them name an extraterrestrial body "Bob". I can see the headlines now: "Bob threatens impact with Earth". Much less scary than "Apophis threatens to wipe out all life on planet!".
Hurricanes (and Storms) have that feature. Given that my name is one of the chosen Storm names (but it's not Bob), I am not sure if I would prefer to have a headline that said "Bob Kills 30,000, Leaves Millions Homeless" or "Bob is a Dud"
Slashdot Mirror
I always thought every municipality should have something like a bug tracking system that citizens could use. Does anyone know if some administrations ever tried that ?
Yes, Citizen Request Management systems (another "CRM" acronym) are available, and widely implemented.
The leader in the market place is E-Gov Link. You can see it in action at Lowell, a suburb of Boston (who was featured in TFA).
Sure enough, potholes are on the Lowell CRM, as are a number of other types of citizen requests, like sidewalk repair, Graffiti issues, tree issues, etc.
I wish I had mod points to mod you up.
"Vatican bans IOS Confession App" headline is totally misleading (and actually incorrect).
They didn't ban the app. They said that the app is to be used to as you said - to help you determine what to confess. Which is exactly what the app was designed for, and what their earlier announcement said.
No change. No story here. Nothing to see here. Move along.
You don't create a new fucking word
The word is "cheat," dickholes.
dickholes? Did you just create a new fucking word?
If my wife wasted $175 on an Android tablet thinking it would be like an iPad, she would find she was now an ex wife.
Besides what that says about your relationship and marital skills, you seem to make the assumption that my wife thought it would be like an iPad (or even that I might want an iPad!)
I got MORE than what I wanted, I love my Android pad, I use it every day, and it is exactly the device I expected and more.
Why would I want to pay $499 for something I don't want, when $175 exceeds my every requirement, including many requirements that the iPad does not even meet?
Too bad that book was about Data General, and not DEC.
The book opens with a turf war between two computer design groups within Data General Corporation, a minicomputer vendor in the 1970s. Most of the senior designers are assigned the "sexy" job of designing the next generation machine, which will be done in North Carolina. Their project (code-named "Fountainhead") is to give Data General a machine to compete with the new VAX computer from Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), which is starting to take over the new 32-bit minicomputer market.
To Date not one tablet competitor has been able to meet apple's price point by a significant margin
I mentioned last November that I would get a notepad when the 10-inch Android models hit the $175 price point.
With that specification, I had one waiting for me under the Christmas Tree, 2010.
I laughed as I walked by the iPad displays in Best Buy over the next few days, with prices of $499, $599, $649. iPad, baaah.
I could have had 3 Android pads for the price of the CHEAPEST iPad.
You guys just need to find wives who can shop!
(maybe I should have ended that sentence at 7 words.)
Now we can start looking for good landing sites.
Make sure you go at night!
Whose bright idea was this?
Well I agree it doesn't look like much, but then again it's 10,000 years old. That's much older than most other such remnants in the world. Either way, it's definitely not natural. Humans did this.
How did you make the leap from "not natural" to "Humans did this"?
Other animals? Aliens?
I swear, people are so dedicated to perpetuating this stupid myth that consumer electronic devices interfere with our brains. Its been so thoroughly debunked that it's almost in the same realm as anti-vaccination/autism beliefs (except it doesn't get people killed.)
People were never dedicated to perpetuating this stupid myth back in the old days. It's as if people have gotten stupider, as electronic devices have gotten more prevalent.
Hey, wait a minute....!
At something like $1000/unit, I bet these people would be singing a different tune.
I dunno. I couldn't get my 78 year old Dad to use a FREE Roomba Robot Vacuum Cleaner or a FREE Tom Tom GPS. But he has 5 AOL accounts.
Old people and technology don't mix.
The general reason for buying an item (whether it's a stock or a motor scooter or a computer) is that you feel the value to you is greater than the cost to you.
The value may be in expected appreciation, or it may be in utility. Or it could be both. You may buy a classic computer because you believe it will appreciate in value, and because it works. You may buy a modern motor scooter because it gets you where you want it to go, and because you think it will someday be a classic (or at least worth more than what you paid minus the utility value). Many people buy Toyota cars because they hold up in value - so you get utility and resale.
Stocks have a different utility. A stock is just a portion of a company. If you buy a big enough portion, then you have a TON of utility. You can do lots of things with the company, including breaking it up for sale in pieces, take it in a new direction to make more money, etc. And you don't even need to own a majority of the company to receive this utility - as long as a majority of the shareholders are thinking alike.
Sorry, I am in support of the analogy, and it wasn't even mine. I see your point, but I think you are stretching it a bit.
Um... the point of owning the stock is that you can choose to sell the stock, hopefully for more money. My motorscooter, my computers, and my collection of erotic Hummel figurines don't pay dividends either, but I own them, which means I can sell them.
I know what you mean but that is an awful analogy. You can't do anything with stock but trade it, at least your motorscooter and computers have uses - which is most likely what you got them for anyway.
Wrong. I can borrow against stock (and even buy a motor scooter or a computer).
I can also buy more and more of the stock, so I eventually own 51% of the company. Then I can do a LOT of things.
If the stock were selling for fractions of a penny, I most certainly would do that.
If the stock were selling for $50/share, some huge company would certainly do that.
That's why it's not so low priced.
Thanks for emphasizing the speed point.
Question: On Android, the apps are written in Java, and byte-compiled. This is certainly faster than JavaScript (which also has the penalty of download times as well as interpreted or compilation time when you run it). My question is, is Obj-C a byte compiled language like Java, or more like a fully compiled language like C?
I hate to show my ignorance publicly, but I've been under the impression that byte-compiled languages (like Java and Python) aren't "fully" compiled, as they still have certain "interpretive" capabilities (like garbage collection, heap management, and introspection in Python), whereas the traditional "compiled languages" would fully compile something into machine code with no interpreter involved, which is significantly faster than byte-compiled programs.
Is the performance of Obj-C more like Java, or more like a traditional compiled language (like C, or Cobol, Fortran, etc)? Scanning the Wikipedia page for Objective C, given that it has garbage collection, and some other run-time stuff included, I'm guessing that it performs similarly to Java.
I suspect it performs more like Java than compiled C, and I suspect that it's the object management (and maybe garbage collection or heap management) that is the bonus software that tends to slow it down.
As the article said, retail outlets buy back unused tickets - just say that you bought a whole bunch as give-aways, and here are the ones left over.
Well, the article actually said that he would ask first if they'd take back the unused tickets BEFORE he bought them. Then buy a whole roll, and return the unused ones.
I didn't mean to imply that animation is limited for web apps. Animation on a mobile web app is the same as animation on a web page. So you can do some flash stuff (if flash is supported on the smart phone), or you can do jQuery type of animation (collapsible menu items, highlight items, shake them, etc.) Probably the major difference (aside from the fact that you use different toolkits for your animation) is that the web app needs to download a lot of code to make the animation work, while the smart phone app downloads that code one time upon installation.
Regarding a news app, I think some of the issues that I mentioned still apply that you didn't include in your list.
- App Wake up: I think you might want to have breaking news alert you. Or anytime someone posts a story about the Pittsburgh Steelers or Egypt or your company name.
- Application Prominence and the "feel" of a native app. I think these two items are very critical. On my Smart Phone, I have a few icons on my main home screen that I use all the time. Slashdot's website isn't one of them. In order to get to slashdot, I need to start the browser, key in "sl", choose it from the list, and read the tiny slashdot website on my phone. If I had a mobile app installed, it would be on my desktop, one click and I would be reading articles and comments that are appropriate for my screen size. Reading Slashdot on a Droid X is a drag. (And Slashdot is essentially a news site, right?)
- Integrating with a camera: CNN just came out with an interactive app that allows you to snap a picture or a video, and immediately submit it to their site as "breaking news", along with a comment of what you are seeing. This was demo'd yesterday at Google's Honeycomb announcement. This would be pretty cumbersome to do using HTML5, flash, etc.
- Integration with other apps for a news site might be handy. Send this news story to a friend via MMS from my phone. Not sure how you'd do that with a web app.
- Something I left off of my analysis, above: Pay model is generally much better in the Mobile Apps. In-application purchases are a click away on the iPhone - it just shows up on your phone bill. And Honeycomb (Android 3.0) will have similar capability. How would you do in-app purchases on your Flash News app. Example - my local paper has a website (Gannett is the publisher), and users can purchase any high quality photos that are published on the site. You have to click through a complement payment process on their website - shopping cart, and all that. On a Smart Phone app, you could literally click-buy, click-confirm, and you own it.
My main conclusion with the exercise was to demonstrate that there's a place for mobile apps that web apps just won't fill. There are a group of people that will dig in their heels and say "Let's just stick with what we know (HTML, Flash, JavaScript) because there ARE certain advantages to that (support, using current knowledge, and application distribution being the main "pros"). But you'll end up getting blown away by a competitor that develops a mobile app.
I've explained this before: the Nobel Peace Prize was given to Obama specifically for not being George W. Bush!
You just named the qualifications of 7 Billion people.
Where do I pick up my Nobel Peace Prize?
I should clarify that my analysis is comparing web apps on mobile devices to smart phone apps.
So when I say that the technologies for web apps are less mature, for instance, I mean that there are certain things (like HTML 5 specifications for accessing Location, Camera, etc) that just aren't there yet. They are well specified in the APIs for Android apps and iOS apps, however.
What exactly can you do with an app that you can't do in a web browser with Flash, AJAX, or HTML5?
I did this analysis last week, and summarized it for management in a nice pretty table that I can't easily reproduce here. But I'll do my best:
Regarding Standards: Web Apps will generally run on multiple platforms, but the technology is less mature. Smart Phone Apps need to be developed for each platform (iPhone vs Android, for example)
Regarding App Wake-up: Web app User must start the app by visiting the web page. but Smart Phone apps, Once installed, app can run in background and be awoken from server. Alerts work much better for Smart Phones than Web Apps. Notifications for Web apps must be performed "out of band" (i.e. emails for instance)
Regarding App Distribution: Web App is immediately accessible, no download required. vs Smart Phone App must be pre-installed once from the market / app store; Users are adapting to the market paradigm
Regarding App prominence on device: Web Apps require URLs or Shortcuts through bookmarks and hyperlinks. Smart Phone apps, Once installed, app can be prominent on the device "desktop" (web apps: Out of sight / Out of mind)
Regarding App Updates: Web apps have Central Control and immediate. Smart Phone apps have Easy updates, but user not required to update. Implications are Multiple versions of the smart phone app may be in the wild, and cause unnecessary support. Work-around might be to put in a self-destruct /auto-update feature (i.e. if this version is "too out of date", then nothing works until you update)
Regarding Swipe input: Web app- not available. On Smart Phone app: available - Allows for more robust application control
Regarding Voice Input: Web app not available. On Smart Phone apps, Available on Android. Google has voice integrated into many of their applications already, and has an API for developers
Regarding Location awareness: web apps: available in HTML5 - not on all Smart Phone Browsers yet. On Smart Phones: Available to apps through API. Implications: GPS coordinates can be read by compliant browsers. It will be cumbersome (i.e. user will get prompted, and may have already disabled the feature.) With Android, user is prompted as to whether they want to allow Location Awareness when the app is downloaded, and then never bothered again.
Regarding Camera: Web apps, it's not available unless you use Flash and prompt. Smart Phone apps: Available to apps through API. Implications: Uploading a photo to a server through a web application is cumbersome.
Regarding Orientation sensing (portrait or landscape): Web apps: not available to application, but browser may self-adjust. Smart Phone apps: Available to apps through API. Implications: Application can adjust its display, based on portrait vs. landscape
Regarding Accelerometer: web apps: not available. Smart Phone apps: Available to apps through API. Implications: Motion by the user can be sensed via the GPS. This is helpful in games - not sure of the business application implications yet.
Regarding Local Persistent Storage: Web apps: Cookies: very small local storage. Other storage can be done via prompting the user to save a file. Smart Phone apps: Massive storage is available (such as Touchdown email storage). A smart phone app can have a good sized data repository for reference material, with quick access. A web app can have a HUGE data repository, with slower access.
Regarding File Displaying (pdf, for example): Web apps: Browsers handle various file displays seamlessly . Smart Phone apps: Can be done by opening the browser. Probably not a huge difference between the two approaches.
Regarding Speed of app: Web app: Subject to data transfer rates. Smart Phone app: Once downloaded, no data transfer to run the app. Implications: Smart Phone apps will tend to be as fast or faster than web apps.
Regarding Animation: web apps: Don
Yes. But will it run Windows?
Your question was probably a joke.
Microsoft announced that they are developing Windows for the ARM chip, at the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2011. So I think the answer is no, not yet.
The bigger the fool the more confidence they have.
Hmm, you say that with a lot of authority.
App store has over 350,000 apps. Are you telling me that there are more than 100,000 that are worth while?
Not a chance.
Simply *randomly* select ten apps, and tell me how many you find interesting - worth spending more than - say - 5 minutes on, or even worth starting a second time! My experience says it's less than 1 in 10.
That's a LOT of crap.
I think the answer to the "why" question is that iPhone had apps first, and had the lead for so long.
The vast vast majority of iPhone apps are crap.
Google should create a Crapp-gen program that cranks out 100 CrApps a second, and they'd be caught up in no time.
What's with the exotic asteroid names? Just once, I'd love to see them name an extraterrestrial body "Bob". I can see the headlines now: "Bob threatens impact with Earth". Much less scary than "Apophis threatens to wipe out all life on planet!".
Hurricanes (and Storms) have that feature.
Given that my name is one of the chosen Storm names (but it's not Bob), I am not sure if I would prefer to have a headline that said "Bob Kills 30,000, Leaves Millions Homeless" or "Bob is a Dud"
Zukerberg is trying to salvage his reputation with this appearance (among other things), but the world knows he's a douche.
I wonder how forgiving people will be.