What if you're a coder who has no interest in any of those things? Many people get into SaaS specifically so they don't have to work with bureaucracies any more.
Book publishing can sometimes be alternative, but what if your code is so intuitive and easy to understand that no one needs a book about it? Or what if you're a bad communicator and someone else writes a much better book?
This has essentially happened already. Comedy central censors South Park in a direct response to threats made against them regarding depictions of Mohammed.
Incidentally this episode aired nine years earlier with no controversy over showing Mohammed. Though after 201 aired they did take down Super Best Friends.
Seth Rogen is a bit of a coward. He picked an easy target in Kim given that North Korea is isolated and has no ability to do any real harm to him. Easy to mock somebody who can't get back at you.
Would he have dared to make a comedy mocking Mohammed the warlord turned prophet and 72 virgins in heaven? I guess he was smart enough to figure out that life under police protection would have cramped his partying.
Oh, and Seth is a total prima-donna, witness his recent tirade against Cathay Pacific because they wouldn't allow his wife's dog onto the plane due to the breed being more susceptible to death during flight.
That "ancient religious figure" is arguably causing real harm to real people right now, too. If anything, the difference should be that mocking "ancient religious figure" should be risk-free, while mocking psychos with nuclear weapons is rather risky. How it became exactly the opposite is beyond me.
No. Check out the example in the article, an attacker can make your browser submit a form with a POST request using JavaScript.
It's slightly harder to exploit, as the attacker can't just send you a link to facebook.com, but they can send you a link to example.com which has the form and uses JavaScript to submit the form.
The way CSRF works is that I put a form on evil.com that submits to example.com. If there's no CSRF protection, example.com will accept that form submission as if it had actually come from a page on example.com. GET/POST has nothing to do with it.
Is there any reason to believe the modern day incarnations are more sustainable then their dot-com counterparts? It certainly feels that way but the article is very light on evidence.
The dot-com era was full of companies getting heavy funding with zero sales, zero product, zero track record and absolutely no real market evaluation.
Companies would literally spend days of meetings trying to figure out what colors to paint their huge offices and have massive catered lunches.
I worked at one company that had ZERO revenue and had secured $20 million in funding, and immediately hired 200 people. When the money ran out, they got another cash infusion of $40 million from a pending buy out, and when we were being told this by the CEO, I joked to a coworker that we would need to spend twice as fast this time to run out at the same speed...the very next thing that came out of the CEO's mouth was "so we're going to be doubling our staff right away". I found out later that we had TWO actual programmers in our company (I was one) and 10 "managers" for every actual "employee".
It was ludicrous. I think there are issues with today's 'VC' fueled market, but it's nothing like back in '99.
Nothing beats Atari, who in their heyday had 500(!) marketing drones. Who spent their days at lavish conventions in Hawaii etc. and went through a billion dollars before they got bought out (and all fired).
In terms of sustainability, things like same-day delivery are being attempted by companies with much greater capacity to absorb losses. Google and Amazon can explore potential market opportunities without devoting their entire operation to that venture. If it works out - great, but if-not, they haven't gone out of business, and can re-focus on their core business model.
No one is currently making any money in online food delivery in the UK (unless you count Just Eat, who had the fantastic idea of doing away with any sort of logistics on their part). There's definitely potential for the market to be huge as people become more comfortable with the idea of having someone else pick their bananas for them though.
A pity to see even they're running so lean on the profit margins - I've found them to offer the best organised process for actually getting the groceries inside, where all the crates are staged first, then the bags unhooked and hefted inside, taking very little time at all, versus the loose bags or even completely loose items of the other supermarket delivery operations.
There's an online shoe/fashion retailer in Germany (Zalando, because faux Italian is the new dot-com) that's apparently following Amazon's "every sale is a loss but we're making up for it in volume" model. They're ridiculously successful (in terms of sales and market share) and often held up as an example for successful tech companies.
I'm not entirely sure what their long term plan is, but I'm hoping this is just an attempt to establish a monopoly that can then be exploited to turn the operation into a profit.
Interesting. Is this in any way correlated to the change in legislature regarding free returns? Many armchair economists were speculating that that would be one of the biggest financial pain points.
Most people use food delivery services run inhouse by the major supermarkets, which also means that it's hard to tell whether or not they're profitable. Tesco claims that theirs is (though not masively so) but it's not clear how accurate their figures are, and the competing supermarkets refuse to provide that information.
Since you have traffic, you could work on monetizing in other ways than adsense. Think of a product that visitors might be interested in and try to sell them that.
I second this idea. Find out who are your 'power users' for each app. Is there overlap? You can focus on one type of user, find a complementary product that pays for referrals, and link to it at the bottom of each page.
It seems like they're using cursor tracking to validate human-ness. Assuming thats the case: Since the cursor is outside of javascript's control, it would force the attacker one level higher (to the browser/os, instead of the dom). Not impossible, but still a significant barrier.
Not really, you would just need to reverse the js code, look at what data they actually send to google and randomly generate appropriate data like mouse movements.
I think a better way to look at it is "information addiction" or "social snooping addiction". "Internet addiction" is a silly concept, because the internet is merely the medium. Its like referring to gambling addiction as "casino addiction".
That's exactly what I was thinking of posting when I read the article.
I know a lot of people who could be classified under the "information addict" category.
Two decades ago they would've most likely been regulars at a library, part of book clubs, have all the encyclopedia's they could get their hands on etc.
Two decades ago they would've also have been classified as well read, informed and all similar good things.
If anything the internet has made it easier for them to understand different perspectives and participate in discussions.
Would I call they "information addicts"?
Definitely not.
But there are some types of addictions that the internet as a , medium has made easier to achieve "social snooping addiction" and "WebMD addiction" would definitely be the big ones.
But as OP said, the internet is merely a medium, not the addiction.
This is a ridiculous dismissal of a serious issue, and frankly it reads like you and the parent commenters didn't bother to RTFA.
>through a combination of excessive time spent online and that time interfering with necessary social and professional activities, Internet use would result in either mental distress or clinical impairment, akin to the type of inability to function associated with pathological gambling
Does that read like your typical book club member?
I was referring specifically to the notion that people who spend a lot of time in libraries are information addicts. I think that notion is not serious, and I do dismiss it.
I think baddox may have meant it like "Yeah, right". That and "Right" are often spoken with a hint of sarcasm when disagreeing with said statement.
Also, I never said a casual book club member of library goer fits the definition of an information addict.
I said, and I quote:
Two decades ago they would've most likely been regulars at a library, part of book clubs, have all the encyclopedia's they could get their hands on etc.
Which in my case implies, two decades ago, people who would be classified as information addicts on the internet(in present times) would have gotten their fix using multiple mediums in conjunction; including but not limited to:
- being regulars at a library
- part of book clubs
- getting their hands on as many informative/factoid sources such as encyclopedias
I go on to say:
Two decades ago they would've also have been classified as well read, informed and all similar good things.
Implying that it is a new phenomenon that well read, informed and curious people who like understanding the world around them are unfortunately and too easily classified as addicts.
After which I stated:
Would I call they(sic) "information addicts"? - Definitely not.
Trying to establish, that just because a person seeks out and consumes a lot of data does not make them an internet addict or an information addict.
Now to address your comment:
through a combination of excessive time spent online and that time interfering with necessary social and professional activities, Internet use would result in either mental distress or clinical impairment, akin to the type of inability to function associated with pathological gambling
Since you mentioned it; In my opinion that statement unfortunately seems to get the causality and effects mixed.
It points to excessive time spent online and that time interfering with necessary social and professional activities as the cause for mental distress or clinical impairment.
Unfortunately in reality things are usually the other way around (there may be exceptions, albeit few).
That is, people who suffer from mental distress, clinical impairment or extreme cases of dissonant discomfort in today's day and age use the internet to get easier access to their fix.
People suffering from these alleged symptoms would most likely always sacrifice social and professional activities, regardless of the medium that delivers their fix.
By focusing on the internet and other effects of the real disorders, it perpetuates a disregard for the serious issues that people are actually suffering from.
ex:
A serious hypochondriac would not get fixed by reducing time spent on the internet.
The same goes for disorders dealing with paranoia, obsessions, social stalking etc.
This still isn't right. I think you're throwing around the word "addict."
Perhaps you are using a very loose definition of the word "addict" while the author and I are using a narrow, clinical, definition.
When I, and the author, say "internet addiction" we don't mean that the person just has a thirst for knowledge. We mean that if a person has a behavioral addiction then that person has "an inability to control how often or how intensely you engage in an activity, even when you feel the negative consequences."
This is probably just a semantic disagreement.
The people that can browse the web all day, hold down jobs, care for themselves, these aren't the people the author is talking about. They are talking about the ones that drop out of school, quit their jobs, etc.
>Since you mentioned it; In my opinion that statement unfortunately seems to get the causality and effects mixed.
Do you hold the same stance if we swap out internet addiction for another addiction, such as gambling or heroin?
> Trying to establish, that just because a person seeks out and consumes a lot of data does not make them an internet addict or an information addict.
This wasn't implied in the article. Maybe the grandparent comment implied it, but I don't think so.
As to your comments about "real disorders" and "serious issues" well, we take the bottle away from the drunkard, but that's really another discussion on its own.
Sure, I'm just making the point that sometimes when you look at something like that and think it can be improved, it's worth considering that the cure may end up being worse than the disease.
It is worth considering, but it's often worth finding out what the cure is before writing it off. You have to make the right tradeoffs (eg, when working on a tight deadline, it's probably not the right call to go off into the weeds finding out if you can make 3 lines of code into 1).
Sometimes, yes. And sometimes not. If, for instance, the author would have discovered that forEach worked differently, and there was some function that JS provides that worked cleanly with a readable name, then the article could have concluded that it makes sense to use that.
This is especially true about carpooling with a stranger. Generally, carpooling now happens with neighbors/coworkers, which isn't exactly the same use-case as this.
Book publishing can sometimes be alternative, but what if your code is so intuitive and easy to understand that no one needs a book about it? Or what if you're a bad communicator and someone else writes a much better book?