Shoomz

Really..."damned if you do, damned if you don't"? There are easy ways to approach women without worrying if you've crossed the line on your initial remarks. While you might have to be a mind-reader, at times, to know if they like you, you certainly don't have to be psychic to know if your remarks are offensive or rude.

It's an interesting article and I love how they're approaching app sales. There are some successes out there that are doing well with this sales model (the most recent download I've had like this is Outwitters: http://onemanleft.com/). It is hard to see where the app sales ecosystem is going though (and if consumers will really dictate this path).

I like the framework you layout. It's always good to have a method for walking through problems because it conveys a cogent thought process (reminds me of SAT multiple choice problems or Spelling Bee questions about word origins).

Thanks for compiling this. It helps get a bit more depth out of the article and at least strive to hear what Miles was talking about (although some of it honestly still alludes me).

Jesse, I think you missed the point. It's like the old Consulting axiom: If you can't be part of the solution, there's good money to be made prolonging the problem.

I bounce back and forth on this line thinking that Kyle, while not aware of his social abnormalities, is helping or hurting society. By having someone look at "us" all differently he sheds an interesting light on the individual, but it also is unnerving and crosses boundaries that we would never have thought someone could so easily broach. It is one of the problems with being too close to any subject you're working with (art, a patient, a paper, a project): you get desensitized to anything odd about 'it', but others are just experiencing the phenomena for the first time.

They've already been doing this in chat, I suppose this is a logical extension. That said, is it really necessary to see this or is it a step beyond what is necessary?

A very good point and something that needs to be built into the Kickstarter framework. Some way of keeping ideas 'easy' to fund, but still hold the initiators to a high standard for excellence/delivery.

Hm...don't know if I was the only one, but I thought this topic was going to be about the broader consumption of 'entertainingly educational' information (think Vi Hart vs. StumbleUpon or Khan Academy vs. TED Talks). While some are just information there is a growing glut of edifying and consumable information. I guess I'll have to write something on this topic to satisfy my own reading interest.

I think the problem with this concept is your premise is based around functionality while your reasoning is based around purchasing. Frankly I almost never think about the app icon once purchased, it’s like reading names in books. I almost never know how to pronounce characters until I have to say them aloud, then for the life of me I have no idea how they sound. Case in point: (until the movie came out) how you pronounced “Hermione” (weird example I know). Back to the point, the icon itself gets it recognized for purchase…making it more harmonious with your app experience once downloaded is an ancillary benefit at best?

Logically you would assume that both robots would tie. By making it no longer about a faster reaction time you would be reinstating the basic principles of the game. The interesting follow-up would be how would two bots that just passed Turing tests perform?

While the idea sounds appealing, look what it's done to the medical industry. I'd hate for gaming to get into such a slog of expensive/long/only big company's can play industry.

This blog has a ton underlying something I think of each time I go into a large presentation - be a rock star!

I realize that's oversimplifying it a bit, but if you think about presenting there are many items that do coincide: know your material in and out, think about your audience, bring the enthusiasm...etc. I realize not every presentation is going to be rock star material, but if nothing else it makes me strive to elevate what I am discussing and has given me something more to strive for whenever delivering material to a larger audience.

I'm curious what some of your (the community's) thoughts are on articles like this. While the article itself has a large amount of personal bias with unsubstantiated claims, the conversation it has broached has been rather rich and enlightening. However, that is largely due to its controversial and contrarian (ironically) nature. That said, while the conversation has been thoughtful and looks to have largely refuted article, because so much of the thoughts put up here in the comments have been to downplay the original article, my question is: "Was this article worth our time or just an elaborate waste of time since the premise was bunk?"

For him it's a company, for others it's a project. If you're 'playground' is the business world then you're going to need a company to play. If you're 'sandbox' is a literal sandbox then you're going to need either someone to hire you to build it or somewhere to pawn you goods. Either way, this is cross-applicable to many things besides the author's specific example.

This is pretty awesome. I love solid data, but it seems to me that this might be too much data and too few substantial takeaways...but the graphs are still fun to look at.