If this can match spotify's catalog any time soon, AND be available as an app or (usable) mobile site, ad free: RIP music services. This is an enticing offer for those on the fence about prime, given that spotify premium is $120 a year. For the same price, you get prime, spotify, a bit of netflix/hulu (hopefully more to come on the video end).
For the price, this is a really good deal. However, some people (like me) have over 200+ spotify playlists with over 100 songs, and 20+ ones that I actively use.
If they want to capture spotify's market share, just having a large enough catalog wouldn't cut it. They need a easy way to convert the spotify library into their apps.
The catalog isn't there yet. I'm getting about a 50% hit rate on assorted genres from a variety of artists that I don't feel are particularly obscure, stuff that Pandora plays for me and Spotifiy has in their catalog.
Hopefully this changes and Amazon can add even more value to my Prime subscription.
It's not about disruption so much as it is about choice.
Taxis should not be some ultra-regulated industry, and if it is, it shouldn't be near IMPOSSIBLE (read: ultra-expensive) to be part of that regulated sector.
Nowadays, it's a service as basic as being a barista or a dog walker, the dangers imposed on society by having Uber/Lyft drivers pick up willing, paying customers are microscope to naught. (State/County/City) Sanctioned Taxi drivers aren't some elite demographic for honesty and morals.
If it's an insurance thing, (reasonably) legislate it, but until then, don't stop consumers from using a service that they are clearly overwhelmingly pleased with .
Running WHOIS shows that the domain is registered to MarkMonitor (which Microsoft uses for domain registration) and uses the same nameservers as microsoft.com and windows.com.
I for one am totally fine with it being an opinion to discuss on hacker news.
However, I have significant doubts about the power of constant berration to actually change someones mind - or even make them give up the overt facets of their opinion. Don't you think?
I guess you support people who spend their money oppressing others? I'm against it. It's nothing I'm particularly proud about. It's just common human decency.
I am absolutely 100% intolerant of anyone opposed to gay marriage
Is what I responded to. If you choose to argue against a strawman, that's your business but I won't have anything to do with the perversion of others' arguments for the sake of making a point.
This whole thread has been about Eich's actions specifically. You're shifting the argument to pretend it's just about his opinions. Now where do you stand on his actions, or do you want to keep dodging the issue and play around with false equivalences?
Well, it's probably a little more complicated than that.
Yes, if we define any actions taken by humans as "artificial", then it's "un-natural".
BUT, putting selective pressure on a plant to be more delicious and/or possibly nutritious is as natural with humans as it is with much of the animal kingdom. The edible fruit has an evolutionary incentive to taste better, and therefore produce more offspring.
Trying to assign a good or bad grade to this is exactly the naturalistic fallacy.
Pretty brilliant move.