We do have to remember that this was a social experiment that was not just about giving and receiving sbux coffee, but how a society reacts to a open public commons.
As I said before if the experiment was really only about the coffee and not about the money on the card then Jonathan should have his tweets update with units of coffee, not quantity of money.
The experiment was set up in a way where money was front and center and coffee was only secondary.Also, if it was just about coffee why have an API?
With this twist Jonathan's experiment is even more brilliant.
I expect there's still at least one twist left. rjett [0] and I [1] noticed two more interesting things:
1) Sam commented in the previous thread about buying food for homeless people from the card [2]
2) Sam's brother Daniel was one of the first to mention the possibility of the card being hacked [3]. His startup also funneled close to $600 into the card [4].
The whole thing started as a social experiment. Sam clearly considers what he's doing a part of the social experiment. I think it's still ongoing -- I fully expect another post, possibly later today or tomorrow morning, detailing the different reactions to his "I bought $25 of food for the homeless" comment and his "I bought $675 worth of food for starving kids in Africa" comment. Couple that with "me and my brother actually paid in what we took out" and we've got the makings of quite the experiment!
That genuinely is great, but whose brothers are going to pay into @Jonathanscard to cover the results of posting the exploitative code used to fund iPads that enables laypeople to do so on their own?
As I said before if the experiment was really only about the coffee and not about the money on the card then Jonathan should have his tweets update with units of coffee, not quantity of money.
The experiment was set up in a way where money was front and center and coffee was only secondary.Also, if it was just about coffee why have an API?
With this twist Jonathan's experiment is even more brilliant.