HN user

nickzarzycki

40 karma
Posts14
Comments9
View on HN

the deletions and insertions in track are just as visually simple as on paper

This really is an aesthetic claim you're making, and it goes against what many in publishing feel, which is that substantial edits through track changes are clearly more taxing, less comfortable, less intuitive and uglier than paper.

You're also confusing collaboration problems with editorial workflow problems. The author is writing from a copy editor's standpoint, which involves producing clean, professional quality copy through a vertical, step-by-step editorial process.

Let me ask you then: do you think that all scarce emergency supplies should be allocated using price (perhaps via auction) during a disaster?

Under certain circumstances, often involving human suffering or vulnerability, demand based pricing becomes price gouging. Uber's actions here look like price gouging. It's all very simple.

Everyone defending Uber here seems to be either deploying the 'where do we draw the line' fallacy, or claiming that there's no such thing as price gouging.

If you want to defend Uber, you need to show me why what they did isn't price gouging. Or you need to show me that price gouging doesn't exist.

So, really, an opportunity is a tested idea. I completely agree.

It's hard to come up with an idea without at least some intuitive sense of what kind of need/desire its fulfilling. I think people deceive themselves here because they have a naturally inflated sense of how great their ideas are.

To use your phrasing: people think their idea is great enough to require very little testing to become an opportunity - their intuitive sense of how great their idea is is enough to begin immediately calling it an opportunity.