I'm going to be the first developer to build an app on the ihave50dollars API. It's going to be a dating app, because what chick wants to hook up with a guy who doesn't even have $50?
Commenters seem to be missing the point of this. Go visit the signup page, and right at the bottom you'll see this tagline:
If you can spare $50 for a social network I'm guessing you can spare $50 to help put an end to slavery. Yeah, it's 2012 and it's still a pretty big problem. That shit is unacceptable. Really. </whiteguilt>
Personally, I'm not the fan of the "don't spend money on anything until the world's problems have been cured" style of thinking, but it's certainly a novel idea.
Now all they have to do is fix the title of the signup page. Right now it says Signup For App.net.
EDIT: Interestingly, the domain name of freetheslaves.net belongs to "Superhuman Ventures, LLC." I don't know enough about how people taking donations work, but I find it pretty strange that Free The Slaves have a long list of directors and staff (https://www.freetheslaves.net/SSLPage.aspx?pid=285) but no mention of what their corporate structure is. Is this unusual? Should they explicitly be a charitable organisation?
The registrant is probably an artifact of Superhuman Ventures doing the web work for the non profit on a paid or volunteer basis. Small non profits tend to be pretty disorganized about stuff like this.
> Commenters seem to be missing the point of this.
Probably because it's the most poorly presented social statement... ever. Requiring users to go as far as to try and sign up (with no indication it's anything other than a developers idea of a dumb joke) is... silly.
In my opinion it is brilliant, because the site holds a mirror up to yourself. When you read the message, you were actually willing to spend $50 for a some virtual sh*t (compared to wiping out slavery).
That's the best position to get someone in to give a few bucks for something good. Even if it's not the full amount of $50.
Except that the website is so obviously a big joke from the start, that the people who “try” to sign up aren't taking it seriously.
(Also if you think that $50 can wipe out slavery you're incredibly naïve. At least the return on investment when you spend that $50 on “virtual crap” is more clear. That's why people will continue to spend more money on “virtual crap” rather than charities, however undeniably noble their intentions are.)
I think you underestimate two things:
- hipster web people who will sign up for anything without thinking
- $50 which are a small lottery win for a 3rd world family
I am sponsoring an eight year old boy from Kamrabad Uchcha Vidyalaya (East India) for 20 euros monthly. That includes school material (for the whole class), health insurance (for his whole family) and nutrition support (again for the whole family). And no, I've never seen him personally.
But my sister did when she was a volunteering doctor for one year in his area. I really don't want to argue with you, but I believe that it is less naïve to at least try to help with $50 than not to try it at all.
Now let's back those awesome 3d glasses on kickstarter...!
Mylan Engel wrote a fantastic paper (albeit about childhood starvation) about how we are in fact morally obligated to donate to relief funds based on (in his words) beliefs we already hold. I highly recommend it. "Hunger, Duty and Ecology: On What We Owe Starving Human Beings"
Twitter actually played a notable part in taking down several repressive regimes over the past year or two. I no longer trust Twitter to be reasonably available to the oppressed in a year or two, given their crackdown on third-party clients (like mobile clients). App.net is intending to be a platform for everything, and "everything" includes "bringing communication and openness to purge corruption out of the darkest corners of the world".
Yes, "everything" also includes "taking hipster photos of my meals and sharing them with my hipster friends", and that's closer to why I actually signed up, but the implicit claim that $50 towards a project as ambitious as App.net does _nothing_ to solve the world's social ills is very questionable.
Their board and staff consist of 27 people, including all directors. The breakdown of their expenditures structure is on the right sidebar of the donation page:
5% Fundraising
11% Administration
84% Programs and Services
At the bottom of the same sidebar are links to their past financial documents, up to 2010 ( http://www.freetheslaves.net/Document.Doc?id=251 ). In that are their compensations per-employee on page 7 and 8. Of the 12 employees listed, no one received compensation of more than $36,000, and the total compensation for all of them was less than $80,000. Most received zero compensation. The average hours each work per week are also listed, so one can take an educated guess about the corporate structure.
Their total revenue (~$2.9 mil) and expenditure (~$3.1 mil) are listed on page 12. For that year, they operated at a ~$200k loss, leaving them with ~$1.1 mil in assets at the end of the fiscal year. More itemized details are available within.
I think it's good to be skeptical of charitable organizations given the corruption that has been exposed in some non profits. As to why 2010 is the last available? The 2011 returns were due in April 2012. Perhaps they're waiting on approval from the IRS before publishing it. Someone else could chime in here with a better reason.
As for the "don't spend money on <x> until <y> is resolved" mentality...I see it all the time:
"It's such a shame that people spend money on Instagram/Facebook/Twitter when space travel/clean energy/cancer research/etc is such a greater cause..."
The communist anti-capitalism rhetoric of the mid 1900s was similar: comparing the luxuries of the rich against the suffering of the lowest common denominator. Perhaps there was a similar pitch on the capitalist side against communism--I just don't see it.
I think the beauty of this organization (and most non-profits) is that it's based on voluntary participation. They're not forcing anyone to donate. Their emotional manipulation is on par with the typical commercial for weight loss, beer, cologne, anti-depressant medication, etc...and in my opinion, their cause is more noble.
Black and white much? This idea that everything that's anti-capitalist or anti-stupid-ways-we-spend-money is communist is absurd.
The anti-capitalism rhetoric of the "mid-1900's" was a full-on propaganda campaign put out by government agencies and supported by the very real threat of nuclear total annihilation. Comparing a complaint about the stupid ways we spend money and organize our priorities to the Cold War is a bit of a stretch. I fear communist comparisons are becoming the new Godwin's law.
In reality, the guilt mentality discussed above is much more similar to the ultra-realist perspective of the comedy of Louis CK— http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk —in that it is ridiculous that we have the immediate concerns that we do, but is, in fact, entirely true, and it's observant and useful to point that out.
So, in the mid-1900's there was this thing called Communism. It was a real thing, practiced in many different countries self-consciously. One of the tenants of Communism as it was practiced was that capitalism was bad, and one of the things that Communist countries did was to release anti-capitalist propaganda. So when today we talk about communist anti-capitalist rhetoric, we're not calling all anti-capitalist rhetoric communist, but rather referring to that particular subset of anti-capitalist rhetoric which was, indeed, communist.
This does not mean that such arguments are not straw manning the issue. However, it does mean that they're more nuanced than whatever the argument is that you're trying to debate with above.
Excuse me for a one-off useless comment, but a Communist country never existed. USSR was not communist.
Communism is being described as "A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions."[1]
Hence, no rulers. Communism in its essence is a form of Anarchist society.
For most idealistic -isms, I doubt any implementation could exist that would satisfy the -ism's true believers (particularly since those implementations would have flaws that would need to be disclaimed).
2011 taxes were due in April, but so long as all the money is in (possibly in estimated tax payments with an extension form), most people and organizations don't need to submit the full paperwork until six months later. Rather famously right now, Mitt Romney hasn't. (He's promised to make this year's and last year's returns public, but this year's isn't done yet.) So, it's quite possible that a bare-bones charity is also taking advantage of the extension.
(You won't get any refund until you file the full return, you'll get hit with penalties if your estimated payments undershot the actual tax due by very much, and shorter deadlines may apply in particular cases, like people filing from overseas. But most folks can get the full six months.)
Political commentary aside, his comment is accurate and should not be downvoted.
Taxes are due in April, usually on the 15th. Income returns and information returns are nominally due in April but the filing deadline can be extended to September. Extending the filing deadline does not extend the deadline for payment, so taxpayers seeking extensions should pay their estimated taxes by April and will receive a refund if they later discover that they overpaid.
Most organizations, companies, and wealthy individuals extend their filing dates to September. Consequently, it is likely that they have not yet filed their 2011 return.
> Commenters seem to be missing the point of this.
A plug for a charity that's three clicks in, and occupies, what, 5% of the copy written for this site, can hardly be considered the main point of the site.
The site is a parody of App.net. Simple as that. He also offers an alternative thing to throw $50 at if you have a spare $50 to throw around.
Thank you for this. Perhaps it's early, but the fact that the site is a parody wasn't initially obvious... I was thinking it was just another start-up with a snarky copy writer.
And 50 dollars to save the rain forest. 50 dollars for starving children.
50 dollars for social problems, like states that still have death penalty. 50 dollars to allow people to get education and make the world better.
Oh, if everyone who has 50 dollars spare would spend them, we could transform the world into a global utopia by just using what we have and waste anyway. You know what? It could even be done for free if everyone would spend a little of time and his/her skills. Like really, we could just fix problems by moving things around. Best example: Current (as inefficient as it is) food production could RIGHT NOW feed everyone on this planet THRICE(!) (says the WHO, not some random person). It just needs to get there, which also isn't a huge deal if we simply would use the infrastructure we have RIGHT NOW. I don't know, maybe we could even do it without much effort if we would just take use of what's wasted here anyways (because nobody invests into people using that infrastructure, because of the financial crisis that (in a way) forces people to do nothing).
So, if it is that simple, why don't we and change things to finally be able to do something we all want and can be really proud of?
Maybe I am a dumb idiot, but I honestly don't know.
What about getting together and just try to do it? Anything we've got to lose? I mean most people here I guess know to value the experience you get from failing.
Which is an ongoing problem, given perpetual interference by politicians. Consider Sam Kinison's solution: If 10 people pitched in $50 each, they could move one of those people to where the food is.
I think the inequality and poor distribution and needs fulfillment is structural.
It starts with the belief system which is more or less Social Darwinism, even though many people don't want to admit that.
If you can correct that flawed perspective and make the world truly more egalitarian, the next basic problem is figuring out how to create a system or fundamental operating principles for a system which results in holistic efficiency while at the same time supporting local adaptation and evolution.
If the western world (re)colonized all the dysfunctional nations run by warlords that prevent relief from getting to people that need it, that would be very helpful. Strangely, nobody seems to consider this solution. Imposing order and good government on areas with pathologically bad governments seems obviously good.
Honest question - what does modern slavery have to do with white guilt? According to the wiki entry on modern slavery "Most are debt slaves, largely in South Asia, who are under debt bondage incurred by lenders, sometimes even for generations."
I'm not sure of the source Wikipedia uses - from experience working in South Asia / Middle East, there are certainly many economic 'slaves', people who's pay (or lack thereof) and contractual obligations make them de facto slaves, but outside of that there is a not inconsiderate amount of what you might more traditionally call slavery in countries such as Mauritania.
So? Good for him. In the big scheme of things, money is the consolation price. This however is a spoof, it hits bullseye, and it's actually intelligent. You cannot buy that with money.
How many posts have you seen on HN in the last days that mentioned "I put my money where my mouth is"? I came across 3 or 4, one poster even quoted their app.net welcome e-mail, haha...
Now this. Priceless. I couldn't stop laughing reading the page, and the fact that they actually refer you to a worthy cause when you try to sign up makes it all the better. 10 million out of 10 possible points for style, to quote Douglas Adams.
It actually comes of as teen angsty and narrow minded. The type of nonsense ignorant people like to spew because they can't grasp that we can focus our collective effort on many things at the same time, that we can spend money on our own interests and still be a positive force in the world.
> "It actually comes of as teen angsty and narrow minded."
The site? Or some of the reactions to it?
> "The type of nonsense ignorant people like to spew because they can't grasp that we can focus our collective effort on many things at the same time, that we can spend money on our own interests and still be a positive force in the world."
How the f did I jumble it up like that? I said that so often over the last 20 years... huh. Thanks, better late than never. I Should read the book again.
You should! Make sure you pick up the 6th book by Eoin Colfer (of Artemis Fowl fame), 'And Another Thing...' who's actually done a marvelous of picking up the series where it left off after Douglas Adams' extremely unfortunate passing.
If that's the cost of friendship, consider it paid.
All joking aside, I agree with the message. I almost signed up for app.net today, but didn't (after finally noticing the charge aspect (not gonna lie, didn't really look into it)) because it is NOT going to overthrow anything, let alone Twitter.
The warm sentiments of no ads is nice, but end-users don't give a shit. $50 is MONEY, free--adversely--isn't.
I'll be happy if people can prosper from app.net, but I don't see much happening there that didn't happen at google+.
I would never pay for something like that, I barely see a use for ad-supported social networks, but those that pay will feel a psychological pressure to make use of their investment, it will also create a feeling of privilege; whereas something like Google+ is seen as free, open and less valued, and therefore needs to vie for the attention.
We whine and bitch about not having control of our data, about some corp having central authority over everything and yet we decide to ignore status.net and pay $50/year to something that doesn't even exist yet. Go figure.
It is a form of a verb, but it essentially becomes a noun. Which brings me to my next point- [VERBing] is a participle in this case, not a gerund, since it's an adjective modifying "people."
It doesn't become an adjective, it very much remains a verb. If it is, for example, "people dying" then it's not saying "they are dying people", it is saying that the people are currently dying, i.e. an action, using a verb.
When one of those things occur in isolation, that doesn't automatically mean you're fighting for truth.
For example, app.net was never in the being ignored phase, it's got plenty of hype and it doesn't even exist yet.
Also, there's plenty of things that get mocked and nothing more. Sometimes laughter results from fear, sometimes it just results from genuinely finding something hilarious.
But thanks for comparing app.net with Gandhi, that just made it funnier :P
No need to apologize, thanks actually. I wish people would correct grammar more often, certainly mine, and doubly so when it comes to names.. why get used to writing stuff wrong, when I can get used to writing them right :)
why get used to writing stuff wrong, when I can get used to writing them right
In that case....
"wrong" and "right" are adjectives, while "writing" is a verb which you are using the words "wrong" and "right" to modify. However, adjectives should only be used to modify nouns and pronouns, not verbs. In this case you should use an adverb:
why get used to writing stuff incorrectly, when I can get used to writing them correctly
If you prefer, you can use "writing" as a noun and continue to use "right" and "wrong":
why get used to the wrong way of writing when I can get used to the right way
I hate people who correct grammar on the internet, but you did make the mistake of asking. Sorry.
Why, I thank you! But I will also have you know that "Sorry." is a sentence fragment. When correcting others, you should always try to correct them rightly, not wrongly, even if it may sound odd sometimes.
In case you intended to take that advice to heart, you can use 'right' and 'wrong' as adverbs in all but the most formal contexts, and possibly even then too. They're called 'flat adverbs,' and there's a great video post from MW that you can find if you Google the term.
Please, no. I avoid taking part in grammar threads, but a plea for more has drawn me out. There are few things that derail conversations more than pedantic quibbling about "do" or "make". Take a look at this subthread: a bunch of people who feel better about how they've shown themselves able to one-up others but zero interesting discussion.
</rant>
My biggest feature request for HN: private comments. Let me reply to a poster privately. Then if I see somebody who looks like a non-English speaker who has made a mistake or somebody who has misspelled a name, I can correct them without causing this kind of useless thread. Not to mention private conversations (where you could say more than you are willing to say publicly) started around interesting comments could turn epic.
Please pursue your private comment idea further than this comment. I think it's a fantastic idea. Would you be able to (or know someone who could) make that change? http://ycombinator.com/arc/arc3.tar
Way to quote me out of context.. I specifically said I wish they'd correct me more often. I never mind, and wish people could flag themselves as language learners or forgetful ^^
That said, I still agree with your complaint. Marking a reply as off-topic (voluntarily, though of course admins should be able to override this), with each comment potentially having a sub-thread with off-topic replies, is something I'd like to see here, and have planned for my own CMS. Best of both worlds, and with unlimited nesting of that, you could even go off-off-topic, or off-off-off-topic.
There's nothing wrong with that sentence. I don't do those corrections, as in, I don't do that thing where you pedantically correct every little tiny "error" I can find. Got it smart guy?
And they will never get past that. I wouldn't mind it being stuck in stage one though. All the App.net spam has seriously degraded the HN quality overnight.
Oh come on, it's not that bad. There's never more than a few articles at once, and it's a legitimate hacker topic since anyone would have to be a fool to build on Twitter these days, and yet it is a very ripe API that people want to build on.
I think you are right. People want to build on App.net. The problem is ~10,000 people have signed up and there are already ~100 apps for app.net[1]. To me that sounds like a developer circle-jerk. Developers and other technophiles typically have disposable income, love to bash incumbents and jump on the next bandwagon. App.net satisfies all of those desires. It will be interested to see if anyone else really cares.
I just don't think trading one man's walled garden for another is what we need. We need an email-like solution to this problem. Something open and federated.
At least I know what app.net is. There are so many new things mentioned on HN every week that it's hard to keep up. Oh, CloudPython is up to version 2.1 you say? And now it supports 50% more bogons? Wow!
Indeed, that line of argument is a form of the Galileo gambit[1], which is just a way to rationalize ridicule or criticism by claiming an unfounded correlation between opposition and eventual victory. Yes, many people who eventually succeed are criticized or laughed at initially - but people who eventually fail are often criticized or laughed at initially as well.
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Alright, I read the damned post and I still have no idea what it's about. Is it supposed to be satire, or some other wink and nod approach to...something?
Either I'm just not all that bright, or they took a swing and missed on their message.
I am not really interested in all the twitter/app.net hoo-haa but I find it intriguing that we are at a stage that one guy develops a product and charges $50 for it. And the rest of the world mocks him for not making it free.
People are not mocking app.net for not being free. They are mocking it for being a generally silly idea borne of nerd-rage against 'the man' err... Twitter... wait, what?
Yes, they are. The entire premise of this stupid god damn thing is that everyone who joined app.net just wanted to shout to the world that we have $50 to spend. Well, I'd also like to shout to the world that whoever made this is a killjoy and an idiot.
They are mocking it because they think it's a privileged network only for people who are willing to pay the grand sum of 50 US Dollars. It was the same story with svbtle. This smug sense of entitlement is frankly disgusting.
Now, putting the joke aside, let's be real. Whilst the majority of you aren't willing to spend $50 (Including myself), the fact is, some people already have and they have managed to raise a lot of money.
I suppose it doesn't matter what product you have as long as you know how to market it and most importantly, solve a problem.
Whilst App.net may be ideal for developers because it considers their requirements, I highly doubt whether main stream users care the problems that App.net is trying to solve. None of my friends would pay for a social network, and neither would I. Why? Because I can use my phone and there's plenty of other free alternatives.
Either way, I wish App.net all the best but I rather keep my $50.
They have a product they're charging $50 for and they have 1000 customers. Whether you see a problem being solved or not, there's clearly $50 of value in the eyes of these 1000 people, and that's what a business is.
People can pay $25 to adopt a star, which is just a certificate saying you spent $25 on a certificate. That's a legitimate business (or charity) even though it's idiotic. Lots of businesses are about solving the problem of too much thickness in your wallet and your head.
I know... like televangelists.. I was merely wondering if there is more to it.
I mean, people DO (intend to) develop apps for it.. how many of them are solving actual problems, and how many just make them in the hope that people will use them? You know, the latter would kinda make app.net meta-kool-aid for kool-aid brewers, but that's snarky, and also premature. So I'm really, honestly asking, and willing to consider answers.
Yes, I am skeptical, but I'm trying to not be too much of a bigot. After all, asking doesn't cost anything :D
Asking is free, but what you ask frames the debate, and the truth is that Twitter would have had no hope of satisfying you if you'd scrutinized it like this. It's convenient that App.net is so clearly positioned as for-pay Twitter because trying to explain what Twitter is or why you'd pay for it is impossible if people don't already see the value in what Twitter does. What actual problems does it solve? Now that we have App.net in the debate, everyone can point to "network effects" as if that's the whole story but that's certainly not why Twitter was created or what got the early adopters interested.
World-changing apps solving actual problems? It's been two months, man! For how long was the web nothing but "Welcome to my home page! It's under construction!" with blinking text and animated GIFs?
I suppose it doesn't matter what product you have as long as you know how to market it and most importantly, solve a problem.
So I asked, what problem does it solve. That's all. Since you're not even the one who claimed it solves a problem, why not, you know, let me ask that question in peace, instead of moaning about me asking it?
I was asking those who think app.net solves a problem which problem it solves; that includes at least the person who seemed to imply (I'm not sure if they did) it does, as well as anyone else. And it may even include you; feel free to give it a shot. Just not interested in reasons for not answering it - lack of responses does the same in less bytesize.
Twitter keeps piling up requirements on developers using their API to maintain their brand identity. App.net is going to allow developers to do whatever they want. So it's everything technical you can do with Twitter, plus everything they shut you down for doing.
it's convenient that App.net is so clearly positioned as for-pay Twitter because trying to explain what Twitter is or why you'd pay for it is impossible if people don't already see the value in what Twitter does.
214 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 181 ms ] threadIf you can spare $50 for a social network I'm guessing you can spare $50 to help put an end to slavery. Yeah, it's 2012 and it's still a pretty big problem. That shit is unacceptable. Really. </whiteguilt>
Personally, I'm not the fan of the "don't spend money on anything until the world's problems have been cured" style of thinking, but it's certainly a novel idea.
Now all they have to do is fix the title of the signup page. Right now it says Signup For App.net.
EDIT: Interestingly, the domain name of freetheslaves.net belongs to "Superhuman Ventures, LLC." I don't know enough about how people taking donations work, but I find it pretty strange that Free The Slaves have a long list of directors and staff (https://www.freetheslaves.net/SSLPage.aspx?pid=285) but no mention of what their corporate structure is. Is this unusual? Should they explicitly be a charitable organisation?
I'm not sure why the LLC owns the site though.
Probably because it's the most poorly presented social statement... ever. Requiring users to go as far as to try and sign up (with no indication it's anything other than a developers idea of a dumb joke) is... silly.
That's the best position to get someone in to give a few bucks for something good. Even if it's not the full amount of $50.
Came to HN to find my answer. I guess that may work given that app.net users will eventually know what's up.
(Also if you think that $50 can wipe out slavery you're incredibly naïve. At least the return on investment when you spend that $50 on “virtual crap” is more clear. That's why people will continue to spend more money on “virtual crap” rather than charities, however undeniably noble their intentions are.)
I am sponsoring an eight year old boy from Kamrabad Uchcha Vidyalaya (East India) for 20 euros monthly. That includes school material (for the whole class), health insurance (for his whole family) and nutrition support (again for the whole family). And no, I've never seen him personally.
But my sister did when she was a volunteering doctor for one year in his area. I really don't want to argue with you, but I believe that it is less naïve to at least try to help with $50 than not to try it at all.
Now let's back those awesome 3d glasses on kickstarter...!
Yes, "everything" also includes "taking hipster photos of my meals and sharing them with my hipster friends", and that's closer to why I actually signed up, but the implicit claim that $50 towards a project as ambitious as App.net does _nothing_ to solve the world's social ills is very questionable.
5% Fundraising
11% Administration
84% Programs and Services
At the bottom of the same sidebar are links to their past financial documents, up to 2010 ( http://www.freetheslaves.net/Document.Doc?id=251 ). In that are their compensations per-employee on page 7 and 8. Of the 12 employees listed, no one received compensation of more than $36,000, and the total compensation for all of them was less than $80,000. Most received zero compensation. The average hours each work per week are also listed, so one can take an educated guess about the corporate structure.
Their total revenue (~$2.9 mil) and expenditure (~$3.1 mil) are listed on page 12. For that year, they operated at a ~$200k loss, leaving them with ~$1.1 mil in assets at the end of the fiscal year. More itemized details are available within.
I think it's good to be skeptical of charitable organizations given the corruption that has been exposed in some non profits. As to why 2010 is the last available? The 2011 returns were due in April 2012. Perhaps they're waiting on approval from the IRS before publishing it. Someone else could chime in here with a better reason.
As for the "don't spend money on <x> until <y> is resolved" mentality...I see it all the time:
"It's such a shame that people spend money on Instagram/Facebook/Twitter when space travel/clean energy/cancer research/etc is such a greater cause..."
The communist anti-capitalism rhetoric of the mid 1900s was similar: comparing the luxuries of the rich against the suffering of the lowest common denominator. Perhaps there was a similar pitch on the capitalist side against communism--I just don't see it.
I think the beauty of this organization (and most non-profits) is that it's based on voluntary participation. They're not forcing anyone to donate. Their emotional manipulation is on par with the typical commercial for weight loss, beer, cologne, anti-depressant medication, etc...and in my opinion, their cause is more noble.
Black and white much? This idea that everything that's anti-capitalist or anti-stupid-ways-we-spend-money is communist is absurd.
The anti-capitalism rhetoric of the "mid-1900's" was a full-on propaganda campaign put out by government agencies and supported by the very real threat of nuclear total annihilation. Comparing a complaint about the stupid ways we spend money and organize our priorities to the Cold War is a bit of a stretch. I fear communist comparisons are becoming the new Godwin's law.
In reality, the guilt mentality discussed above is much more similar to the ultra-realist perspective of the comedy of Louis CK— http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk —in that it is ridiculous that we have the immediate concerns that we do, but is, in fact, entirely true, and it's observant and useful to point that out.
It is not, however, communist.
This does not mean that such arguments are not straw manning the issue. However, it does mean that they're more nuanced than whatever the argument is that you're trying to debate with above.
Communism is being described as "A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions."[1] Hence, no rulers. Communism in its essence is a form of Anarchist society.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Etymology_and_termino...
(You won't get any refund until you file the full return, you'll get hit with penalties if your estimated payments undershot the actual tax due by very much, and shorter deadlines may apply in particular cases, like people filing from overseas. But most folks can get the full six months.)
Taxes are due in April, usually on the 15th. Income returns and information returns are nominally due in April but the filing deadline can be extended to September. Extending the filing deadline does not extend the deadline for payment, so taxpayers seeking extensions should pay their estimated taxes by April and will receive a refund if they later discover that they overpaid.
A plug for a charity that's three clicks in, and occupies, what, 5% of the copy written for this site, can hardly be considered the main point of the site.
The site is a parody of App.net. Simple as that. He also offers an alternative thing to throw $50 at if you have a spare $50 to throw around.
50 dollars for social problems, like states that still have death penalty. 50 dollars to allow people to get education and make the world better.
Oh, if everyone who has 50 dollars spare would spend them, we could transform the world into a global utopia by just using what we have and waste anyway. You know what? It could even be done for free if everyone would spend a little of time and his/her skills. Like really, we could just fix problems by moving things around. Best example: Current (as inefficient as it is) food production could RIGHT NOW feed everyone on this planet THRICE(!) (says the WHO, not some random person). It just needs to get there, which also isn't a huge deal if we simply would use the infrastructure we have RIGHT NOW. I don't know, maybe we could even do it without much effort if we would just take use of what's wasted here anyways (because nobody invests into people using that infrastructure, because of the financial crisis that (in a way) forces people to do nothing).
So, if it is that simple, why don't we and change things to finally be able to do something we all want and can be really proud of?
Maybe I am a dumb idiot, but I honestly don't know.
What about getting together and just try to do it? Anything we've got to lose? I mean most people here I guess know to value the experience you get from failing.
Which is an ongoing problem, given perpetual interference by politicians. Consider Sam Kinison's solution: If 10 people pitched in $50 each, they could move one of those people to where the food is.
...and war lords.
It starts with the belief system which is more or less Social Darwinism, even though many people don't want to admit that.
If you can correct that flawed perspective and make the world truly more egalitarian, the next basic problem is figuring out how to create a system or fundamental operating principles for a system which results in holistic efficiency while at the same time supporting local adaptation and evolution.
I was thinking it should have been called 'i had fifty dollars, but i gave it to these people'
How many posts have you seen on HN in the last days that mentioned "I put my money where my mouth is"? I came across 3 or 4, one poster even quoted their app.net welcome e-mail, haha...
Now this. Priceless. I couldn't stop laughing reading the page, and the fact that they actually refer you to a worthy cause when you try to sign up makes it all the better. 10 million out of 10 possible points for style, to quote Douglas Adams.
The site? Or some of the reactions to it?
> "The type of nonsense ignorant people like to spew because they can't grasp that we can focus our collective effort on many things at the same time, that we can spend money on our own interests and still be a positive force in the world."
LOL? Now you're really reaching for it.
How the f did I jumble it up like that? I said that so often over the last 20 years... huh. Thanks, better late than never. I Should read the book again.
What's not to get?
All joking aside, I agree with the message. I almost signed up for app.net today, but didn't (after finally noticing the charge aspect (not gonna lie, didn't really look into it)) because it is NOT going to overthrow anything, let alone Twitter.
The warm sentiments of no ads is nice, but end-users don't give a shit. $50 is MONEY, free--adversely--isn't.
I'll be happy if people can prosper from app.net, but I don't see much happening there that didn't happen at google+.
better?
Try [GERUND] or better, [VERBing], maybe?
>it is saying that the people are currently dying
It would appear that App.net is now at stage two.
For example, app.net was never in the being ignored phase, it's got plenty of hype and it doesn't even exist yet.
Also, there's plenty of things that get mocked and nothing more. Sometimes laughter results from fear, sometimes it just results from genuinely finding something hilarious.
But thanks for comparing app.net with Gandhi, that just made it funnier :P
Oh the irony.
“Not to be confused with Murphy's law.”
Muphry's Law is something different (yet related).
In that case....
"wrong" and "right" are adjectives, while "writing" is a verb which you are using the words "wrong" and "right" to modify. However, adjectives should only be used to modify nouns and pronouns, not verbs. In this case you should use an adverb:
why get used to writing stuff incorrectly, when I can get used to writing them correctly
If you prefer, you can use "writing" as a noun and continue to use "right" and "wrong":
why get used to the wrong way of writing when I can get used to the right way
I hate people who correct grammar on the internet, but you did make the mistake of asking. Sorry.
(tee-hee :)
Please, no. I avoid taking part in grammar threads, but a plea for more has drawn me out. There are few things that derail conversations more than pedantic quibbling about "do" or "make". Take a look at this subthread: a bunch of people who feel better about how they've shown themselves able to one-up others but zero interesting discussion.
</rant>
My biggest feature request for HN: private comments. Let me reply to a poster privately. Then if I see somebody who looks like a non-English speaker who has made a mistake or somebody who has misspelled a name, I can correct them without causing this kind of useless thread. Not to mention private conversations (where you could say more than you are willing to say publicly) started around interesting comments could turn epic.
That said, I still agree with your complaint. Marking a reply as off-topic (voluntarily, though of course admins should be able to override this), with each comment potentially having a sub-thread with off-topic replies, is something I'd like to see here, and have planned for my own CMS. Best of both worlds, and with unlimited nesting of that, you could even go off-off-topic, or off-off-off-topic.
or
You see this mistake frequently.
I don't normally do these corrections, but I can't help myself in this case.
ad infinitum
I just don't think trading one man's walled garden for another is what we need. We need an email-like solution to this problem. Something open and federated.
[1]https://github.com/appdotnet/api-spec/wiki/Directory-of-thir...
Until app.net becomes a bitcoin exchange...
[1]: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit
-- Carl Sagan, "Broca's Brain"
Edit 30s later: Oh it's a spoof. My faith in humanity restored.
Either I'm just not all that bright, or they took a swing and missed on their message.
It's making fun of the idea of paying $50 to sign up for a years membership to this service.
Buying the membership doesn't prove you HAVE 50 dollars, it proves you HAD it.
They are mocking it because they think it's a privileged network only for people who are willing to pay the grand sum of 50 US Dollars. It was the same story with svbtle. This smug sense of entitlement is frankly disgusting.
Then once he became popular what does he do? He built svbtle, a blog network of bloggers who all have pages and posts that look identical...
I also avoid the greater-than-thou grouping.
Now, putting the joke aside, let's be real. Whilst the majority of you aren't willing to spend $50 (Including myself), the fact is, some people already have and they have managed to raise a lot of money.
I suppose it doesn't matter what product you have as long as you know how to market it and most importantly, solve a problem.
Whilst App.net may be ideal for developers because it considers their requirements, I highly doubt whether main stream users care the problems that App.net is trying to solve. None of my friends would pay for a social network, and neither would I. Why? Because I can use my phone and there's plenty of other free alternatives.
Either way, I wish App.net all the best but I rather keep my $50.
What problem does app.net solve? Honest question, because it surely doesn't solve the problem of walled gardens.
People can pay $25 to adopt a star, which is just a certificate saying you spent $25 on a certificate. That's a legitimate business (or charity) even though it's idiotic. Lots of businesses are about solving the problem of too much thickness in your wallet and your head.
I mean, people DO (intend to) develop apps for it.. how many of them are solving actual problems, and how many just make them in the hope that people will use them? You know, the latter would kinda make app.net meta-kool-aid for kool-aid brewers, but that's snarky, and also premature. So I'm really, honestly asking, and willing to consider answers.
Yes, I am skeptical, but I'm trying to not be too much of a bigot. After all, asking doesn't cost anything :D
World-changing apps solving actual problems? It's been two months, man! For how long was the web nothing but "Welcome to my home page! It's under construction!" with blinking text and animated GIFs?
I suppose it doesn't matter what product you have as long as you know how to market it and most importantly, solve a problem.
So I asked, what problem does it solve. That's all. Since you're not even the one who claimed it solves a problem, why not, you know, let me ask that question in peace, instead of moaning about me asking it?
it's convenient that App.net is so clearly positioned as for-pay Twitter because trying to explain what Twitter is or why you'd pay for it is impossible if people don't already see the value in what Twitter does.