I was thinking the exact same thing. It's funny that he wrote that entire post and never raised the possibility of OTHER people sharing their contacts with LinkedIn, and that may explain at least some of the "people you may know."
I was suspicious that something was up with Fireworks after purchasing the web bundle for CS6 and noticing that Fireworks didn't adopt the new dark minimalist design that Photoshop and Illustrator had.
I use Fireworks for all of my preliminary UI design work because it has the precision necessary to get across certain crucial design elements. Unfortunately, this is not possible with the low-fidelity wireframe alternatives and not intuitive in Adobe's other products.
Yes, many of Adobe's products have overlap, but prototyping is a key part of the design workflow and deserving of a dedicated platform.
Instead of "if you build it, they they will come." For Altucher it's actually, "if you pretend you can build it, they will come."
This is a common theme in some of Altucher's other stories. I think it would only be lying if you acted like you had already built it. However, selling your ability to build a future product is definitely not lying.
Altucher is kind of known for his sensationalist article titles. However, in this case the content of the article is solid and pragmatic, particularly the bit about "picking a boring business." If your main goal is to work for yourself, finding a not-so-sexy niche is the way to go. Potentially less competition, more room to breathe, and plenty of opportunity.
Arguably more damage is done to society from a mass distributor of cocaine than a single murderer.
I'm not saying that selling drugs is equal or worse than murder, just that there is a lot more to what happens when you distribute drugs than just moving around white powder.
Didn't intend to be patronizing. Not everyone has witnessed the problem with their own eyes. They're left with the cartoon version of crack, the version they witness on shows like Dave Chappelle. Do I really think locking people up is what solved that problem? Short answer NO, but does cutting out the supply help? Yes. And in conjunction with treatment programs it's/was a start.
Santos was considered a "King Pin" under the law, which essentially meant that he had several people working under him and was also dealing with very large financial transactions (this by his own admission in the UC Berkeley video).
By today's standards the punishment may seem harsh, but at the time it was probably appropriate.
I thought I had seen it on HN as well, but I just searched around and realized it was a Quora post from 3 months ago that I was thinking of by the same guy. Apparently Santos went from knowing zero about technology to being a viral marketing master.
5,000 plays on Spotify or Pandora is not equal to a single play on terrestrial radio. A single play on terrestrial radio probably reaches closer to 10,000 listeners, depending on how large the market is. In other words, 5,000 plays on Spotify is less than a single play on terrestrial radio.
I always thought that the benefit of services like Spotify and Pandora was to get a band's music to people that wouldn't ordinarily be exposed to it. This in turn would prompt listeners to go buy the band's music on iTunes or Amazon.
Good music is really hard to find. I search around iTunes all the time and come up with nothing. So ANYTIME I hear a song that I like I buy it within the same day (usually the whole album).
For bands that aren't seeing this sort of conversion on sites like Spotify and Pandora, this might tell you something about the demand for your brand of music.
I have to do a usability critique of a current website for a class I'm taking and I came across this article. Anyone know of any current, major websites that have usability issues (of any kind)?
In regard to the article I'm pretty sure Pepsi's 1996 website beats out their 2013 website, what a mess.
I recommend reading the full letter from Prentiss as opposed to the summarized version on B-insider. The full-version presents a very clear cautionary tale about business strategy and management. Prentiss articulates himself well and gives you an inside look at what it's like to watch a start up fail.
How is this not a bigger deal? How does Sarah conclude that "No, Facebook is not that desperate for cash it’s just testing some outrageous price points in order to figure out how high prices have to be to keep spam out of your inbox."? Wouldn't anything above the amount of free keep spammers out? Just some of the questions I'm boggled by when reading this article. $100 to email Zuckerberg?! Facebook should be embarrassed as should the so-called journalists that defend this behavior.