Which utopian planet do you live on? Since when asking to leave the people who're squatting in your house illegally is a bizarre thing to do? In most places in the world, illegal occupants deal not with a couple of polite and scared copywriters but with law enforcement & enraged legal owners of the property.
Looks like a new framework that does the same thing as phonegap. The 'thin native wrapper over html5 webview' isn't actually that hard to do (even for multiple platforms). I prefer to roll my own because, last time I tried PhoneGap, the extra bloat made my app sluggish. It was much more responsive in a minimal custom wrapper.
It's wrong for people to think they are better off than they are because such thinking leads to decisions that will hurt Joes in the end. It's exactly Joes who shoot themselves in the foot by thinking that it's an each man for himself world.
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." --Steinbeck
I'm not sure I'll be able to change your mind if it's not evident to you why that is a bad self-image, but here goes:
First, you have to define "bad". It's not bad for the planet, or bad for society as a whole. It's bad for the person who has that belief, because it leads him to act against his self-interest (as a poor person) and making him act for the interest of richer people.
Shouting "Why should the rich pay higher taxes so the poor can get better healthcare?" when you're yourself poor isn't "good" for you, is it?
First, you have to define "bad". It's not bad for the planet, or bad for society as a whole. It's bad for the person who has that belief, because it leads him to act against his self-interest (as a poor person) and making him act for the interest of richer people.
It depends on how important your principles are to you. One expression of altruism that the left in the US doesn't seem to respect at all is the idea that someone who's poor or unemployed might still believe that it's not healthy for society to grant him all sorts of entitlements.
Put another way, apparently "voting for your own self interest" is a good thing only when the lower and middle classes do it. I find this hypocritical in the extreme.
Shouting "Why should the rich pay higher taxes so the poor can get better healthcare?" when you're yourself poor isn't "good" for you, is it?
I'd like to think that my bank balance doesn't determine my political thinking, with regard to what I believe is the best way to run a society for the long term benefit of all of its members.
I wholeheartedly reject the notion of 'class' when applied to productive adults in the United States. So the rhetoric of rich versus poor means nothing to me, beyond referring to an unreasonable concern that some people seem to have with numbers stored in a bank's database under keys associated with other account holders.
Trivializing money by referring to it as "just numbers in a bank" is surreal. Those numbers in a bank are the #1 determinant of whether you will do things like: eat, have a roof over your head, or pass on your genes.
It's pretty much impossible to overemphasize the importance of those numbers.
You're pretending that class doesn't exist while you pretend that money doesn't matter. Class is real. And class is important specifically because money does matter. A lot.
When you're truly rich, they're just numbers in a bank. They're a scorecard by which you determine whether you're winning. Poor people want a reliable car and a roof that doesn't leak; rich people want a higher score, but rich people are more effective at getting what they want.
As for Joe the Plumber syndrome, there's a relevant quote from Vladimir Nesov. Something along the lines of "revealed preference is not a very charitable way to interpret people's actions."
>One expression of altruism that the left in the US doesn't seem to respect at all is the idea that someone who's poor or unemployed might still believe that it's not healthy for society to grant him all sorts of entitlements.
So if you're poor and left-wing nobody should take you seriously? What if you're rich and left-wing?
And I don't think a lot of people have a problem with the rich voting in their self-interest. It's when they control the airwaves and purchase the government that people get upset.
(Needless to say, I'm not referring to people in the 250k-500k band here, but rather that 1% that controls half the wealth of the nation.)
Probably because there is a rather obvious negative interpretation: People think they have a real chance to become a millionaire, while in reality, they will probably always be comparatively poor. So they always make decisions based on this imaginary future as a rich person, even if it is much more likely that they will not be better off in the future.
The implicit assumption is that the plumber is farther along in his life and has a lot more (family, home, social benefits, health, etc.) to lose than a 19 yr old in YC...
The first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging you have a problem ....
If the Joe the Plumber wants to support tax cuts for the rich and he's fully aware of his situation, then there is no issue having that opinion. But if his self-image is distorted (as was implied by the media reports), then it is bad to posses that as it means you will be making wrong decisions based on incorrect understandings.
The issue isn't his desire to aspire to greater wealth, it's his unrealistic understanding of what his actual financial status is.
Steinbeck clearly didn't mean it as a compliment, though, so I have to assume the same of anyone who just drops the quote in a thread with no elaboration.
That's ludicrous. Perhaps people make decisions based on values instead?
For example: I don't make 250k/year, but I'm opposed to increasing the taxes of that income bracket. Perhaps a true value driven person sees taxes not as a way to get more of what they didn't earn, but as something that isn't morally right.
In a similar fashion, Amazon could give you the physical keys from their AWS datacentres or otherwise you could just buy some hardware, install linux on all of them and run your own cloud infrastructure.
It's exaggerated, of course, but i hope rationale behind the api is more clear this way :)
I think the benefit is that in the first scenario, you have to maintain the server yourself. In the second, you only have to worry about the clients. It's definitely a trade off, but for some developers, the benefit of not having to maintain server infrastructure might outweigh the cost of the added complexity of going through Kik.
It is designed for content - textual & binary. While I can imagine an ugly fugly way to overload the api and use it for chat functionality within your app, but then it would make for a really bad user experience within your app.
This version of the SDK was designed with the sole intent of content sharing.
Well, Sketchee is probably the simplest app imaginable. You can build out on top if it. For instance, a canv.as derivative app, where you could prepopulate most popular meme images and let people create and share photobombs with their friends.
Also, basic things like location & media sharing were intentionally left out for third party app developers to get creative with.
No, you are definitely correct. I've got some other added-value ideas that would be cool. I was just a little surprised to see my first instinct was the sample code =)
