> hard work to keep the seedlings alive for long enough to establish and grow.
Yes its hard work & time taking to nurture them. I am from India, we have government funded nurseries here, they are affordable, but they do not provide very good plants. Growing seeds to 2-3 feet plant (which are ready to be planted to the land) takes between 1 to 2 years. If this process can be streamlined with some technology. A lot of effort can be saved.
I'd be worried if my wife expected me to call more frequently than that because it would imply our relationship wasn't as solid as I thought it was. Also British.
To me a strong relationship is one that lasts across time and physical distance without constant attention. Obviously within limits. But if my wife expected me to call her everyday, or vice versa, I could only assume that there was an insecurity/neediness that hadn't been appropriately handled.
The point is showing you're there for the person, giving them the opportunity to mention something that's on their mind. It's about showing a special sense of availability, contrary to the texting availability that you provide to anyone else on God's green earth that may have your phone number saved or written down somewhere.
texting isn't ideal because you might get a response in an hour, or two days, or the next minute.
there's a lot of value in being fully present for a social interaction: when you're on the phone and paying attention, it's typically a lot more engaging than the other person watching a video, texting 4 other people at the same time, or whatever else people do in between texts.
I totally agree with you. I have made ddg my default search on browser but many times I end up Googling. It has increased the time to get the final answere to 1.5 times atleast.
Oh man...I can totally relate to it.. I have a 2 year kid and last 2 years have been most difficult for me and my wife's life given that I need to take of the startup as well
Recently, I started using Firefox plugin NoSript which stops javascript execution on random websites. It makes browsing little better.
I started using it when I found out one tab was eating 2GB of RAM. I think in todays world its very important that you allow only selected trusted websites to run Javascript!
This is a static site that tricks users into using it, then after several uses disables functionality and demands a "donation" to cover server costs, but the person asking how much the server actually costs is being a jerk?
You don't have to use it. It is a service, not a human right. The question about margins on this thing is a perfectly valid one however, but do we all think that when we buy something in a store that nobody makes a profit?
Let's change context. You go to a restaurant because it is advertising free meal opening night. You go, you eat, you have a good time. When you stand up to leave you are informed that in order to leave you have to pay the door tax.
A restaurant like that would be sued for false advertising. How is willfully gathering data about yourself only to be extorted money to access that data later on any different?
That would be a good analogy if OP told you that you had used $5 worth of resources and now have to pay, then calls the police on you when you close your tab.
It’s not about making a profit. Everyone wants to atleast cover their costs (including their own time). And personally I like money. I like having it and I like spending it. So I’m not going to bitch at anyone for seeking a profit.
My objection to the current wording is that it comes across as the server costs are though the roof. As a static site with a little thinking it can be heavily cached both online and on device, “New” apps could be generated offline and uploaded or auto generated using a server less (I still hate that term) back-end, knocking down that $7 per month to pennies per month. To the point where the domain name is the most expensive part of the site. Heck I can think of ways to use GitHub pages to run the site and get those server costs down to $0p/m.
But for me personally that can countered by simply remove the word server (Anyone who really knows the term “server” will have an idea of the cost). Removing the ref to their overheads removes that from you thought process when deciding on if dropping a few bucks is a good value. For me personally the message feels like they are struggling to cover their overheads when I know they will be small (To the point where personally I would run it for the shits and giggles of it). If they are even struggling to cover server costs the owners of the site won't be motivated to maintain the site.
Infact remove the word “costs”. When we walk into a supermarket we don’t think of the stores costs when we are purchasing things. By removing the wording I wouldn't be thinking about their server costs and thinking about it as more like dropping the creators a few bucks.
IMO being honest and a little bit cheeky can get you a long way. So personally I would word it like “Hey, want to see the number of times you have opened this app? Well for the low price of a cup of coffee instead of this Annoying message that is exactly what you see. Click here...”
