Just curious, how much would you pay? Would you feel better about paying per vendor or a flat fee to monitor up to X vendors, or something completely different?
I work on https://monitoro.co which offers exactly what you're looking for, and is not limited to terms of service.
We also allow you to filter changes for the specific ones that are relevant to your needs, and trigger 3rd party APIs or webhooks with the updated data, or a text diff.
This has been one of my biggest peeves about the WWW since 1993. Please include publication and/or change dates and/or include a changelog on your pages. Do not force your users to resort to reading metadata, the URL path, the Wayback Machine, or dark magic to figure out when and what changed. Diff is a solved problem; why can't I diff a generic web page?
The only thing to which you are entitled–by definition–is access to the source. It is your responsibility to verify what the source does.
The "getting paid" notion is off-topic and has nothing to do with the source being open. If I provide commercial support for someone and implement a solution using open source software, I am the one providing the support and I have no expectation that the original authors will hold my hand.
You're not even entitled to have access to the source.
If repository is down or if you don't know how to use git and demand updates being sent to you as zip files on your email - your demands mean nothing, you are not entitled to be given access to the source code.
You have _permission_ to use it in some license limited way and that's all.
If you _use_ open source code (ie. as part of your product), you may be _required_ to also provide source code, attribution etc.
That depends on the licence, though. GPL3 requires that obtaining a license should not be harder than obtaining the binary distribution. If you use some kind of obscure version control system for your source code but link the binaries in your website, you're entitled to the source code in a similarly easy way.
The developer could exercise their rights and insist on sending you a DVD with the source code on it (and make you pay for materials+shipping) but throwing up difficult burdens is clearly forbidden by the GPL.
Some more extreme licenses grant you, as a user and as a developer, a lot of rights, but also a lot of burdens. I don't think the stricter ideological licenses such as GPL are used much by people who distribute their own code and then decide to make life difficult for their users, though. It's likely that the only cases where this rings true are people relying on GPL code that then want to avoid fulfilling their obligations to their customers.
Most free software licenses don't concern themselves with use, except that they may make it clear that use is not restricted in any way. A license that restricts use in any way is probably not free.
> you are not entitled to be given access to the source code.
If you're the user of a binary image someone spun from a GNU licensed program, actually you are entitled to that, if it is the Affero license (AGPL), you may be entitled to source code access even if you just use the thing as an online service. Specifically, you're entitled to access to the source code of the modified version that you're actually using.
> If you _use_ open source code (ie. as part of your product), you may be _required_ to also provide source code, attribution etc.
That's redistribution. If you redistribute some kinds of open source code in a product, you may have to provide source code, and that's even if that code is never called. The presence of that code in the image is the key thing, not whether it is used. Use occurs on the target system, by the end user.
That "we" which refers to "you" may be talking about that; I'm talking about nothing other than the claim that users have no entitlements of any kind whatsoever.
I fell hard out-of-love with fantasy about the time of the release of Jackson's TFotR, which coincided with a hard "nope" to the fantasy "science" fiction of the Star Wars universe and has grown to a rejection of 95% of the MCU. They feel, to me, as schlocky and infantalizing as the fantasy of the Twilight & Harry Potter novels/films. It is all annoying nostalgia for an era that never existed.
Give me the "hard" science fiction of Herbert, Card, Dick, Butler (especially Butler!), Okorafor, Liu, et al. Dick was problematic, sure, and Liu has said things about Uighurs I can't stomach, but their works look forward and not back.
> Liu has said things about Uighurs I can't stomach
I wonder whether he "had to", not that it makes it okay. The parts about the cultural revolution in the first book were interesting because I didn't know you could still get published if you wrote negative stories about the party.
Critiquing the Cultural Revolution has been acceptable since 1981 when Deng published/authorized the party's second "Resolution on History," which laid out officially that there were "excesses" during the Cultural Revolution, and that they were primarily Mao's fault.
This is in line with a lot of Chinese/Communist political thought in general - the Party is never wrong. If the Party endorsed what is later viewed as a "wrong action," then it must be the fault of an individual who erred or was corrupted in some way.
In the same minute that I learned GitHub had been acquired by Microsoft, I cancelled my pro subscription and began moving my critical repositories elsewhere. I'm old enough to remember the MS that tried to choke the life out of GNU/Linux and spread FUD about all FLOSS, the one that engaged in anti-competetive behavior during the "Browser Wars". I'm not suggesting that this blunder of a delay is related to the Microsoft acquisition, but the abusive "Look at me, I'm changing" spiel never cut any mustard with me.
Vote at the ballot box and with your dollars. Do not reward executives, lawyers, or engineers who dissemble or obfuscate.
memory of that stuff is just never ever going to die, is it?
yet the same people use google, and facebook, and AWS, like those companies sit upon moral high ground. they do not.
Linux succeeded and defeated Microsoft in every single way that matters to open source people, and the response is to continue to hate Microsoft for their loss? I do not understand.
Just admit your motivation for saying things like this: you hate Microsoft because Slashdot told you to, or tells you to, and you want to let people know about that, unprompted. Nothing about Microsoft's behavior in the 1990s has any bearing on what GitHub does today.
Microsoft is still doing this anti-competitive things with web browsers today. Every so often, my Windows 10 machine switches back to Edge, or adds Edge back to the task bar, or prompts me to try out Edge, "the recommended browser for Windows".
And no one is claiming that Google, Facebook, and Amazon are better. Those are not the examples I would pick to show Microsoft could do better, for sure. This is whataboutism.
> yet the same people use google, and facebook, and AWS,
Speak for yourself.
For me, the lesson I learned while growing up with the MS of the 90's was to not trust any big corporation. The power imbalance is too large, individuals have no way to protect themselves and they will take any and every opportunity to exploit that.
This pattern can be seen with in the 90's with Windows, it can be seen today with Github and LinkedIn (talk with recruiters and they will tell you how MS is jacking up the prices and removing functionality) and it can be seen with any of Big Tech in the last 20 years.
Seems like you’re being just as hostile in the other direction. If this isn’t the appropriate time to complain about Microsoft, then what is?
I can’t speak for everyone, but I continue to not like Microsoft because they don’t make a single piece of software that I like, and they’re ruined the ones I did like.
I am just dead tired of Microsoft getting zero credit for the changes they've made since the antitrust verdict.
they haven't done EVERYTHING that EVERYONE wants, so lots and lots and lots of people still shit on them like they're still mad, and it still gives nerd cred to shit on them for any reason. as if we're perfect in comparison...
if the same people speak poorly of Facebook, Google, or Amazon in the same ways, the reactions observed are very different. Very different.
People pick on Microsoft because they once earned it, yet we let so many worse things slide, today, because those things are done by companies which are not Microsoft.
Happily picking an opinion: I won't use phone apps; I won't buy new computers or devices, though I infrequently buy refurbished; I won't buy new cars; I carefully vet all vendors for quality, politics, and ethics (and have largely automated the process); I won't buy new kayaks; I eat a plant-based diet and try to source it locally/ethically; I won't knowingly vote for or endorse rapists or murderers and do my best to vet candidates.
I abhor Google, loathe Facebook, have considerable contempt for Musk (as a person) and the products his companies offer, use Amazon sparingly and grudgingly, and only started shopping at Walmart during the Great Recession when a) they became the employer of the majority of my neighbors and b) other vendors in my area closed.
@naikrovek may not now be aware of what happens when one makes assumptions about other people and their actions, beliefs, etc.
> Linux succeeded and defeated Microsoft in every single way that matters to open source people
I don't know, hardware still regularly does not support Linux, the Linux desktop has a risible fraction of the world's user base, popular apps still only exist for winmac.
It won on the server, sure, but that's hardly every single way that matters, at least from what I remember as an open source user in the '00s.
> Linux succeeded and defeated Microsoft in every single way that matters to open source people
So when someone gets a job where they're required to use Windows and spend all day in IE11 and Microsoft Office, let's say at a very large semiconductor company, they're hallucinating?
Yet you moved the goal post from "Linux defeated Microsoft in open source" to "there isn't anyone using Windows at all". Or are we all hallucinating your comment?
Try undertaking to recognize the actual premises of ∀x-style statements and ∃x-style statements that you encounter in the wild, scooter.
The goalpost was set at "Linux succeeded and defeated Microsoft in every single way that matters to open source people". Ignore the record of what was actually claimed if you want (the quotes you're throwing around are works of your imagination), but that is not merely a claim that either Windows or Linux is "the most common".
The observation that that there exists some X where P does not hold is precisely the way to counter a claim that for all X, P is true.
First let me say that talking with you is really annoying, way worse than anyone else I've interacted with on this site. Removing the "must be hallucinating", "try undertaking to recognize", "scooter" would turn your comment more into thoughtful discourse than sneer (you might want to check out the HN guidelines). I am trying to politely argue, pointed out that your comment didn't make sense to me hoping for a clarification, and got shit on, twice. Nice.
To attempt to answer you (I might regret this): what did you take "every single way that matters to open source people" to mean? By gazing through your insults into your comment, trying to find the "∀x statement" you think you saw, I have to assume that you think that means "every one developing open source code isn't using Microsoft?" Is your made-up acquaintance working at a semiconductor company primarily developing open source software there (rather than, say, semiconductors)?
Is the "∀x statement" about "x: way that matter"? Am I to take "non-free software is being used for making semiconductor at a large company" as an example of something that should matter to open source people?
You seem so convinced that there is a logic statement written right there with quantifiers and everything that you don't hesitate to use ridicule on complete strangers and question their grasp of logic. It's funny but couldn't really count as an argument (assuming you were trying to argue rather than just get some bile out).
> First let me say that talking with you is really annoying, way worse than anyone else I've interacted with on this site.
This is not an uncommon reaction from people who are accustomed to bullshitting their way into arguments and who typically "win" those arguments by being just enough of a nuisance—and where the stakes are just low enough—that the likeliest outcome tends to be that the other party decides to move on rather than exhaustively refuting the bullshit. When you find people doing this with you, you are not "winning". In fact, that it happens is a consequence of how annoying others find it to interact with you.
An example (of someone who was similarly incredulous that everyone didn't just let the lame contrarian quips go unremarked upon—and of the sort of company you're in): <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27906289>
> what did you take "every single way that matters to open source people" to mean?[...] I have to assume that you think that means "every one developing open source code isn't using Microsoft?"
No, you don't have to assume that. The only possible reason to assume something so self-serving is because you refuse to engage in a good faith resolution.
On the issue that is under discussion, there's no ambiguity here—at all.
The original statement—which you distorted twice—is a for all X statement: "Linux succeeded and defeated Microsoft in every single way that matters to open source people":
For all X, where X is some thing that "matters to open source people", the condition C is true, where C is the claim that "Linux succeeded and defeated Microsoft [on those Xs]".
The fact that you are unable to parse this out of a very straightforward passage like the one that appears in the part of the comment I quoted, but that you _are_ able to just, like, make some shit up about where the goalposts were set suggests very much that you are not making any attempt whatsoever to actually understand the issue, and you are just in the business here of issuing low-effort quips (like your first two here[1][2]) that don't actually track the discussion. But setting that aside, let's move on to the actual issue of the claim.
The following scenario results in a contradiction of the statement that I responded to:
It is 1997. Ned is working for a very large semiconductor company. At Ned's company, they are required to use Microsoft products. Ned instead wants to use Linux. He is an open source people, and this is what matters to him.
Now, it is 2022. Ned is still working for that very large semiconductor company where they are still required to use Microsoft products—he's not allowed to use Linux. This still matters to him.
It is therefore undeniably refuted via proof by contradiction; the statement that "Linux succeeded and defeated Microsoft in every single way that matters to open source people" is false.
Having now dealt with that, let's read back the transcript and look at your multiple attempts to move the goalposts, e.g. from "every single way that matters to open source people", to something that you plucked out of the air entirely—that is, whether one of Windows/Linux is merely "the most common". That is absolutely _not_ where the goalposts were set, and that's just the first instance of distortion. The second is where you go on to manufacture a quote: '"there isn't anyone using Windows at all"'—which appears nowhere except in your comment where you present it as a quote. Not only is this bullshit, it is the kind of bullshit that is against the rules here on HN.
Do not do this kind of thing. And certainly don't do this sort of thing while making a big deal about how annoyed _you_ found yourself over the course of carrying out this (entirely avoidable! excruciating!) back-and-forth that you alone were responsible for foisting onto the discussion.
No. It won't die. In the same way that memory of the Holocaust won't die (hopefully), or that memory of Putin's invasion of Ukraine won't die (hopefully), or that the memory of the corruption of Donald Trump won't die (hopefully), or the memory of the enslavement of Black human beings in the US won't die (hopefully), or the memory of corrupt policing won't die (hopefully).
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana
You have no idea of what tools I or anyone else on here use or don't use. You only know that I use git, which I could be using independently of everything. I could be using git to track my personal thoughts every day and nothing more. I make an effort to source everything I use as ethically as possible, though it is ridiculously difficult in the world of modern technology.
Microsoft bundling a browser is not the same as the Holocaust. Not the same magnitude, not the same offense, not the same violation of any moral code, at any magnitude.
No one died because Microsoft included IE with Windows. no one was enslaved because Microsoft included IE with their OS.
that you think these are all events of the same magnitude has completely invalidated your opinion, and placed you firmly in crackpot territory.
That’s a pretty neoliberal attitude to effecting systemic change, do you think that’s enough to mitigate those behaviors considering they crop up elsewhere and ongoing
If refusing to do business with a company whose business practices you don't like is "neoliberal" then the term has officially been stripped of any meaning, significance, or usefulness.
Thank you for your input but I am not commenting on the decision to stop purchasing. I'm responding specifically to the final demand: "Vote at the ballot box and with your dollars." The OP is encouraging us to take action against this behavior specifically via choosing how they allocate their dollars as consumers (and also voting), which is core to the neoliberal mission. They're not just saying it's worthwhile to stop purchasing, they're saying that this is the solution
"Voting with your dollars" is not only a neoliberal attitude, it's also a liberal attitude, but moreover it is also very common for leftists. Unless you're buying the rope from capitalists to hang them, realizing how power flows in our current economic system is essential for all.
Waiting for bad corporate behavior to punish individual actors for individual behaviors with dollars requires such an extreme level of widespread activity that you might as well be talking about something more radical and mass-organized than promoting care over simple purchasing decisions, to be meaningful at a systemic scale. These negative behaviors are a feature of capitalism not aberrant fringe behavior to course correct. It’s fine but leaving such a strong command to, paraphrasing, “fix this world by choosing between democrat and republican, and through carefully considering your purchases” (not even a clear call for organized boycott, just the individualized ethics) does not satisfy me
I wore glasses for a few years in high school because I had trouble seeing the blackboard from anywhere but the front row. I started hiking and kayaking every day, especially in places where I could see for many miles. I also migrated from CRT to LCD to LED screens, and more recently to e-ink devices when possible. Very fine print in a dark space is hard to read, but I can read a moving US license plate from six blocks away. Yesterday I recognized a friend a mile and a half away by their paddle-stroke. I am able to differentiate a bald eagle from an osprey at two miles based on the shape of the wings, and see a fish in talons at about a mile. (Friday I observed an osprey dive, catch a fish, head towards the nest, then get chased for thirty minutes by a bald eagle. Nasty, opportunistic birds, bald eagles. I get why Benjamin Franklin held them in such contempt. I lost the pair when they went behind a mountain about three miles away.) In speaking with ophthalmologists, there is wide support for my hypothesis that the near-daily outdoor activity and frequent change of focal distance–from a nautical chart on my foredeck to the bow wave of a tanker eight miles out–has preserved and likely improved my vision. The data: 20/20 in primary school, 20/23 in high school, 20/20 during my higher education, and 20/13 and improving as I approach retirement. A fun trick is to describe an approaching vessel before others have seen it.
I am able to differentiate a bald eagle from an osprey at two miles based on the shape of the wings
I wonder how you judge the distances? I'm a helicopter pilot and I don't even bother looking for traffic farther than 2 miles out unless it's an airliner. I have radar telling me how far away they are so I know the distances are accurate.
I know the estuarine river very well in my part of the world and the approximate distances between various landmarks and aids to navigation. Places I don't know as well, I use nearby features: cars, houses, aids to navigation, etc., to approximate. Exact accuracy isn't critical as normal cruising speed is around four knots. I know the distance from the George Washington Bridge to the Statue of Liberty is about 12 miles, and about ten miles from the GWB to the Battery. It is about six miles from World's End to Anthony's Nose and the Bear Mountain Bridge. It is about 1.5 miles from Little Stony Point to Pollepel Island and another 1.5 to Denning Point.
I also know about how large the various adult birds appear at various distances, recognizing that there is some variability. If it really mattered, I could carry a range finder.
Navigating in the open ocean, with no landmarks, is a little different. I have two compasses: one on my deck and one in my life jacket with my marine radio. I keep a charged phone with GPS and local marine charts in a dry box in a dry bag in a dry hatch in my boat, but have yet to rely on it. I look up the velocity and direction of the predicted currents and keep a chart of that on the deck along with my navigational chart. I plot my course on the chart and note the headings to my next waypoint. I keep a duplicate of the predicted currents and headings in a waterproof notebook on my body in case the chart gets separated from my boat. I note my departure time and calculate my velocity based on my normal cruising speed, adjust that for conditions – wind, current, company – and go for it.
I practice this on my local waters because I've been enveloped by fog off the coast of Maine. In September 2019 at low tide in the morning, three of us in a line with about twelve inches between stern and bow, we were unable to see the other paddlers in their cockpits, which means visibility was no more than seventeen feet. We navigated by instruments, ocean swell, and wind direction for two hours before the fog burned off.
This makes me wonder: is there a lens that you could use instead of glasses that will make your computer screen appear as if it is further away? Could it help people regain their far-sight?
Sure, get convex lens ("reading glasses") of about +1 to +1.5D and make the IPD as low as possible to induce a prism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism_correction#Prentice's_ru... (in layman terms, this will make the "rays" coming from your two eyes "cross" and intersect at a certain distance)
You can also use prismatic lenses as the induced prism probably won't be sufficient (but better than nothing), but my local shop does not make them, so I have no experience with this.
I am shortsighted and I have special glasses for computer/close work (reading, soldering), which are 1.5D weaker and the IPD is 10mm larger (as these are concave lenses, it's the opposite IPD manipulation than with convex). The induced prism for my glasses is about 2Δ.
I don't understand why this is not more popular, both among shortsighted (to have weaker glasses to use indoors) and healthy (to have "reading glasses"). Including the prism. Beware, that some doctors say that by using such "perfect" correction for e.g. your computer screen, your eyes will "get lazy". I don't think this is true, but YMMV.
Protip: there are online services that will just make you glasses, no questions asked, usually for $20 to $40 for basic glasses. Here in .cz we have optiscont, globally, there is zennioptical; you can also search aliexpress. I don't have any apparatus to measure the quality of the resulting lenses, they however seem "good enough".
> I also migrated from CRT to LCD to LED screens, and more recently to e-ink devices when possible.
I too use eInk whenever possible but that's just for reading (a passion of mine). All current computer monitors are LED AFAIK, is there any research tho that it's better for sight, or are you simply stating that you migrated as the technology changed?
I'm thinking that OLEDs are the best looking but one of their weaknesses often mentioned is that they aren't as bright; if you have lots of light (ideally natural sunlight) they may prove to be counterproductive if you have to strain to see due to appearing dim.
More seriously, though, I am not far-sighted. I do not need corrective lenses to read books, newsprint, magazines, or labels at the grocery store despite the possible genetic predisposition baed on the need for reading glasses by my parents and siblings. I often have to read very fine details on nautical charts, sometimes in a seaway, sometimes at night with the use of a headlamp.
Exhaustion definitely changes my eyesight. I'm coming off of two days of kayaking and camping with high school kids followed by an intensive four hour lesson teaching rescues. (Imagine ~3600 boat-poses per hour, then subtract a few hundred and replace them with pulling swamped boats out of the water and across my lap to empty them, climbing out of the water and into the boat to demonstrate a dozen types of self-rescue.) I tried to read last night but my eyes could not focus; I vaguely remember making my way toward bed but woke up twelve hours later downstairs on the floor.
I try to work seven days a week four hours a day for the last ten years. It is an attempt to avoid burnout, but I also find I solve more of the truly hard problems away from the keyboard.
My fantasy setup: waterproof 13"-15" e-ink linux device with 16GB of RAM and mobile connectivity and a Twiddler X Lendal collab on a 210cm Cadence. A rollup waterproof full-size bluetooth keyboard would be adequate. The keyboard and e-ink device would both need tether points and/or internal flotation.
We are careful not to play favorites with customers, whether the relationship is direct or through a reseller. Success for our resellers translates into success for us. Every unit sold matters. Every relationship matters. Critically, every re-order matters. We prefer to smother every relationship with unfailing responsiveness. We never say, "no", but we do say, "not now". The (vanishingly) few customers we have lost, we go through an all-hands soul-searching to understand the "why". Our group and individual integrity is, at the end of the day, the only thing we really have.
I want to point out that "side hustle" should not be a dirty word. I introduce myself as a professional sea kayak instructor and guide with a side hustle as a founding software engineer. My colleague introduces himself as a sea kayak instructor and guide with a side hustle as a high school math teacher and director of the school district's drama program. Autobiography is a skill we should all practice; how you write and speak about yourself translates quickly into who you will become.
>I want to point out that "side hustle" should not be a dirty word.
You're right, but it has become very much associated with people trying to "hack" work to generate "passive income", which usually means something that is a borderline scam.
Sea kayak instructor/guid, math teacher, and software engineer all sound like perfectly respectable ways to earn money. Most "side hustle" bloggers are pushing things like drop shipping, YouTube Shorts/TikTok that just steal content from other people, being a middleman for credit card processing, crypto/NFTs, arbitrage plays that involve gutting store inventory or show tickets that hurt normal consumers (if people want to do the work to hit up garage sales and stuff that's fine), etc.
That being said, I do like the idea of leading with your passion instead of what would generally be considered your primary job. It gives people a lot better idea of who you are, or at least what you'd actually want to talk about.
Totally agree! I live in my own bubble and discount everything written on the internet by some (often arbitrary) percentage. (Dons flame-retardant suit.) I double that percentage if Elon Musk or Marc Andreessen have skin in the game in the last five years. (I admit they both had good ideas and implementations, but those feel like ancient history.)
Straight talk, though: software engineering feels like a "hack". I spend a few hours a day making modest adjustments to a SaaS (that adds real value for our customers) and the income feels passive. I spend several hours outside, where the solutions to the software engineering problems reveal themselves.
I take Rich Hickey's "Hammock Driven Development" as a metaphor for, in my case, "Kayak Driven Development".
My business does exactly this. We have a very small sales team, but the firms white-labelling us have tens-to-hundreds of folks in sales and marketing, and sometimes provide a SaaS into which they bundle our white-labelled product. Our ("our"?) sales funnel is in the triple digits, and we have largely migrated away from sales towards fulfilling orders. It is a wonderful place to be!
We have our own customers, too. In addition, the folks white-labelling use us in-house. We aren't strangers to the companies receiving our white-labelled SaaS; we do the initial customer on-boarding and provide all the higher-tier support.
Eleven years and counting....
But hey, you do you! I will be long retired by the time anyone gains traction with a competing offering. See you on the beach!
Pretty much any on-prem software vendor is some mix of direct sales, partner sales, and through distribution. And in the case of, say, a product primarily for SMBs, the mix is probably going to tilt pretty heavily to partners. There's a lot of leverage to using partners and many of them will know and be connected to some market a lot better than you do.
There are differences with SaaS but they may not be as big as you think. For example, AWS mostly started as a go online with your credit card sale. Now? They have a big enterprise sales force and lots of partner relationships.
I bumped into a friend on the street a year ago he and told me about the business he had recently co-founded and taken through YC: https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/partnered. I told my co-founder about it and it became a significant part of his sales toolbox. I saw my friend last week and shared the single criticism my co-founder had. My friend told me they had recently been acquired by a competitor whose core functionality resolved our pain-point.
Strategic partnerships and white-labelling seem to be critical tools for growth in the current climate.
Whether or not there's any white-labeling involved, partnerships (VARs, SIs, now often public cloud providers, etc.) have been a key part of sales strategy for many types of products for decades.
In our case, there is no "brand dishonesty". In some cases, the front-end is co-branded, in others the front-end is white-label while the resulting product, if used, has our branding. And sometimes the end-user gets the raw data without a need for our branded artifact. In the absolute best-case, the customer automates their interactions and never sees any branding. (I know the marketing people on here blanched when they read that.) Our concern is utility for the customer, growing that utility, retaining existing customers regardless of how we acquired them and who got the generous sales commission, while growing the number of customers and the volume of product used year-over-year.
Affiliate sales have always seemed more dishonest to me than working with a vendor who adds value to our product for our shared customers.
I was opposed to electronic reading of all types having spent much of my life in academic libraries. I'm now on my second Kindle Paperwhite; I gifted the previous generation to a sibling's seven-year old. The Kindle is the only device I take truly everywhere: grocery shopping, strolls in the woods, kayaking & sailing, to bed, to the skatepark. It lives on my body or within three feet. During eight hours of emergency eye surgery for my late dog, the Kindle allowed me to escape the most anxious period of my sheltered life. While waiting at the DMV, the Kindle preserves my sanity. What could otherwise be stressful time becomes an opportunity to enjoy literature or non-fiction and grow my understanding of this world.
