gabrielrotbart

I really love this. The original art piece is just a set of instructions meant to be fed into our minds and generate an imaginary canvas. Now we use technology to just feed the same set of instructions into software to generate virtual canvases

My first thought as well. It raises some interesting questions. Does the perfection of execution take away from the art? What if the meatbag artists were so highly skilled that they executed the same level of perfection? Does it mean different things?

Because we can be better human beings by helping each other. Those private medallion holders made a mistake by putting all their eggs in that one nest, sure. But should the result of it be their lives ruined because "you lost the game, screw you"?

I realize a reply to this can be that bail outs lead to increased risk taking. I would still argue that it's better to risk the system and help those who can not recover from this kind of loss.

I've got it working fine with BT Sync. All you need to do is put the .agilechain file in a sharable folder and load it up with 1password on both ends. It syncs up just fine.

I would like to know as well. Looking at the new NPP[1], I don't see anything that prevents it if full disclosure is provided and consent requested. Although IANAL.

[1](http://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-resources/privacy-fac...)

Very clever.

To respond to above. An approach would be to conduct an ROI analysis for Apple to lie.

For example: Goodwill for seeming to 'fight for the little guy' vs. cost of exposure.

This is a theory only and it relates to rdtsc (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6234271) reply which is inline with my own thoughts:

9/11 and the lack of civilian resistance to a lot of the government actions which followed has (IMHO) shown that they can push the envelope and encounter no outcry. 'They' have continued the push ever since.

I would love to be corrected on this, but I can't think of another modern era when so much obvious, unscrupulous actions were taken by authorities and yet no grand resistance was put up.

Guess I'm in the minority that likes to know what they sign up for.

Thanks for a solid explanation.

Going to hijack and tell you that you've got all the right buzzwords to get me interested but I still have no idea what you're offering from the landing page.

So much so as to dissuade me from signing up (to what?)

Check out: http://www.codetriage.com/

You're right. Although it is 'released' in a way, it has quite a few downloads on Rubygems even though I've never put it out there (HN posts etc).

Thanks (I thought that line was going to end differently considering how it started).

I didn't put it out there because, although it's functioning perfectly, I'm not happy with the internals and would like to find time to refactor it before sending it out to the world.

I wrote https://github.com/gabrielrotbart/gatling ages ago. It integrates visual testing into normal Rspec specs. Focusing on specific elements rather than full pages, makes it more stable.

Maybe it's time to revive it.

Finishing is also important for deciding not to finish.

When you believe that you can finish, and you have difficult past experiences to prove it (to yourself most of all) you can more easily walk away from anything that is not worth finishing, without doubting your motivations for doing so.

Unless the time that sentence is referring to happened prior to any agreements between YouTube and Universal (the article states 2011).

Your explanation is still valuable, however. Thanks.

"Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Children's Subsequent Intrinsic Interest" (Green and Lepper, 1974) (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1128110?uid=3737536...) and some other papers which came after it showed that introducing extrinsic rewards to what was before a intrinsically motivated activity could actually hurt long-term motivation.

I wonder if the same would apply here, if this takes off.

Humanity will always find a way to use the newest technologies for violence. In fact, violence is one of the biggest drivers of technology.

IMHO, limiting and fearing technology because it will be used for violence is futile. The only way (if there is any) to curtail the use of technology for weaponry is to win the war over ignorance / lack of education and poverty.

TLDR: Today's emerging conventions are tomorrow's traditions.

The tools that the English language now has to summarise and communicate thoughts most likely emerged as a convention after years or decades of use, just like any other part of linguist evolution.

I also disagree that having an acronym unfamiliar to someone would prevent them from reading on.