Backbone tries to provide the barest useful essentials -- the main business of building your app is up to you.
I personally prefer minimal frameworks because they don't assume what your finished product will look like. You can grow the application organically rather than trying to fit it into some prototypical mold. Full-fledged frameworks have their uses - they are perfect for getting up and running on known problems. But if you are trying to bake things into an already mature code base or trying a totally different style of architecture, they are not worth the work.
But he isn't trying to be a successful journalist/writer. He was offering advice to other entrepreneurs who would probably take his advice over a journalist's any day of the week.
Being persuasive comes in many forms. You can be a good writer or you can be successful, both of those things get you attention. Being successful might even be better since your words are backed with hard-earned credibility. There's a reason why all sports shows nearly always have a former player/coach as an analyst.
Problems that are inherently too complicated to explain in a sentence or two aren't worth solving, at least not for startups.
I think the problem comes in trying to explain something to someone (an investor) without domain knowledge. In order to be succinct, you have to make some assumptions. It's sort of like a mathematical proof. Given a sufficiently complex problem, a shorter proof generally makes more assumptions about the reader's knowledge than a longer one.
Customers will generally understand the problem better, since you are presumably working on one of their pain points. So it's easier to explain a solution to them than to investors who probably don't have those same pain points. It's in an investor's best interest to be more open to longer pitches unless they already understand the domain.
It seems kind of like they bit off more than they could chew. Even the courses that are now running were delayed 2-3 months. But that's natural for any new venture. I think with more iterations, they'll get better at it.
Well nothing is a full substitute for TV/movies, just like nothing is a substitute for novels. But the question is, is it an overall stronger form of entertainment? I'd say that video games definitely have the potential to be, the industry itself is already bigger than Hollywood and rapidly approaching the book industry [1]. And the market for games just keeps getting bigger that there is no point in trying to dissect why games are not a fit for certain people. It's still unexplored space as Minecraft, GTA, WoW, farmville and the Wii have shown. Make the right game and you can potentially gain a new audience.
And I'm not dodging your assertion either, because games can also be passive. I've spent god knows how many hours watching Starcraft II games - well more than I'd like to admit. That's a game that was built with spectators in mind. I probably enjoy watching the game more than playing it, as wonderful as it is. Apparently so do other people, TwitchTV is evidence enough.
Did you guys consider video games? I think that's already a viable alternative form of entertainment. I would argue video games already killed Hollywood, they just never pulled the sword out. $50 for 100+ hours of content vs $10 for roughly 2 hours? No contest.
I think "do fewer things" is dangerous advice, especially given the relative inexperience of college students. I would say do more things, explore more areas. You shouldn't obsess about getting good grades, but rather you should obsess about learning as much as you can. The things that are truly interesting will stick, but you risk never discovering them if you try and do as little as possible.
I've been thinking a bit about this and it's more a detriment to the United States than it is to the Internet. Censorship is a losing battle, especially with an educated public. There's just no way that this can work, it's a perpetual cat and mouse at best.
I feel that SOPA will pass, there's no doubt in my mind - it will just be a much watered down version, much like any other bill that passes these days. Even this so-called "anti-SOPA" ad is not really anti-SOPA, it just disagrees with certain aspects of the bill. They're basically asking for a compromise and they'll get it. There will probably be a long and expensive process in order to shut sites down. There will probably be some clauses about staying up if you are compliant with take-down notices. And there will probably be more bureaucrats added to the system, with jobs that are essentially useless and another needless expense. Ultimately, it will be like the War on Drugs, War on Terror, TSA and what have you; some far-fetched, pie in the sky plan that never had a chance of working in the first place.
The sad part is that people in Washington don't understand the consequences of what they are doing. They seem to think they have a blank check to play around with. Slowly but surely, they add things like this and the government gets bigger and more expensive to run. You can't just fire bureaucrats, they have a knack for sticking around.
I can't help but feel like I'm watching the slow death of a once great nation. I haven't heard anything lately coming out of Capitol Hill that has any semblance of intelligence.
My own work-flow is kind of a mixture of the two. I find that I have to play around with my synths a bit just to find that right sound - it might not be the right sound for the current project, but I save it just in case. Same thing with melodies, I have a ton of files with unfinished melodies that I mine ideas from.
My best work is actually a culmination of these "snippets" that I build up over a few months/weeks. It's like with each mediocre/average project I produce, I'm discovering the parts of the great one not too far off.
It's the same thing with code, design and all my other creative projects. I have to wade through a lot of weaker ideas and designs in order to discover the best parts. And once I figure those out, it's mostly a rewrite of all my past ideas into the one good idea.
6. Edit and resubmit as much as you want, but be sure to submit at least once before the deadline (October 10 at 8 pm PST), because you haven't applied till you do.
7. Early submissions have a significant advantage because we have more time to look at them and engage with the founders.
8. We may have questions about your application. If there is a question waiting from us, you'll see a link to it on this page and at the top of Hacker News (when you're logged in). So check HN regularly after submitting.
They allow you to submit early and resubmit if you want to word things better or if they contact you about something that's unclear to them in your application.
I'm surprised he didn't recommend gtype, it's probably the best and fastest way to learn how to type in that there are no unnecessary graphics and you need not ever touch a mouse. Fits the Unix approach much better imo.
I personally prefer minimal frameworks because they don't assume what your finished product will look like. You can grow the application organically rather than trying to fit it into some prototypical mold. Full-fledged frameworks have their uses - they are perfect for getting up and running on known problems. But if you are trying to bake things into an already mature code base or trying a totally different style of architecture, they are not worth the work.