Here's a one sentence answer that I think would help non-technology people understand software in general: It's like writing a "Choose Your Own Adventure" story in a foreign language.
I encourage you to check out DRIFT[1]. You can browse the latest images for inspiration (á la Pinterest), and its responsive design scales from large-screen TVs to the smallest handheld devices.
Very interesting article with ties to Wall St as well as Siri. It should serve as a reminder that in business dealings, only -you- have your best interests in mind.
Virtually every business entity and sub-entity, large and small, have customers and vendors. Customers generally expect to receive a worthwhile expertise, product or service from a business. Along the same lines, vendors generally seek to provide worthwhile expertise, product and/or service to a business.
The provision of these products and services at all levels may or may not involve:
A) Either a vendor or customer of the business desiring or actively seeking to harm said business (i.e., the opposite of the businesses best interest)
B) Either a vendor or customer of the business having no opinion or and no interaction whatsoever with said business outside of the provision of product and/or services (i.e., having no interest in the business)
C) Either a vendor or customer of the business intending to help and/or provide worthwhile help to said business (i.e., having the businesses best interests in mind)
It is quite possible that a businesses vendors and/or customers do have said businesses best interests in mind (example C above). Examples A and B are also possible.
Saying that "only -you-" have your best interests in mind is certainly a possibility in some dealings, but my guess that other scenarios are also common.
I agree that it may be wise to assume negligence and double check extremely important matters to a much greater degree than normal. The scenarios outlined in the linked article are a perfect example of negligence, inexperience and lack of communication at many levels. But, at some time, you simply must trust others and can only use your wits, experience and the expertise of even more parties to ensure that those involved in your dealings are doing what they should to the highest professional standards.
Businesses may share common interests with their vendors or customers but they also almost always share conflicting interests. Unless both parties' interests completely align with each other's, I can't see how a vendor/customer can be considered to have the business's best interests in mind.
The article says Dragon agreed to pay Goldman a flat fee of $5 million. What if Goldman did perform due diligence, reported the issues to Dragon, and caused the deal to get cancelled, would Goldman still get $5 million? I don't think so, but if their agreement says they should and I were in Goldman's shoes, I would find reasons to recommend against the deal, because, to earn $5 million, it seems much easier to just advise against the deal than to assist the transaction and bear the risk of a bad outcome. On the other hand, if Goldman gets nothing (or a fraction of the $5 million fee) in the event that the deal gets cancelled, it would be in Goldman's best interests to see the deal go through and avoid performing any potentially deal-breaking services (e.g. due diligence) not specified in the written agreement.
There are scenarios where vendors or customers do have the business's best interests in mind. One such scenario is when the vendor or customer has very close family relationship with the business owner (e.g. husband-wife, father-son, etc.) These scenarios are uncommon. To be on the safe side, I agree with the sentiment that only you have your own best interests in mind.
Thanks for your comment. I'm happy to hear you've bookmarked the site!
My response to your criticism:
1) Good point. Originally, clicking the images would take you to the source page. I removed that functionality because it messed up the experience for touch devices. I'm going to add it back in for desktops in a few minutes.
2) The map is sort of a "look ahead" feature. That is to say, it's value will rise as more and more location-based images are shared. I'm rather impressed with the quality of content currently available around major metro areas.
3) Curious to know what hardware you're using. I'll add a way to turn off the background in a few minutes.
Thanks for the info... I haven't made the change yet because I'd like the "off-switch" to be as elegant as possible. But rest assured, it will be there soon and it will be awesome :) The images should be clickable now.
Backgrounds are explicitly chosen by CC license. The rest of the photos are already publicly shared and I link back to the original source.
I'm glad you pointed out the width of the image stream not being responsive. This is intentional. A gripe of mine regarding the latest image display paradigms is the over-use of browser width. In my research, the strain on the eyes as a result of two dimensional scanning (up/down + left/right) became annoying very fast. The sweet spot seems to be 3 columns, allowing the eyes to gracefully pan down the page and every now and then look away at the background to prevent excess strain.
In Scott's defense, I think it's totally valid to bring up CoffeeScript (though perhaps in a more elegant way with a bit more info as to why it's relevant). It's possible the article's author was not aware of its existence (I think this is likely as CoffeeScript seems to address his main concerns about JS).
Even if Coffee isn't in use at the moment, if it provides some value it would be worth promoting within the organization. New technologies routinely pop up, and the onus of proving their worth ultimately lies on the developers, even if they aren't the decision makers when it comes to selecting which ones are adopted and which ones aren't.
Regarding item 3, are you sure 10M+ shares is typical, and if so, why? I recall a story of serious trouble as a result of issuing this many shares with regards to tax implications down the line.
Alan Watts is a great resource on this subject, particularly in translating eastern philosophy for the western world. That is to say, he "sums it up" and puts into context the concepts of Tao/Zen Buddhism/etc, which would be tricky if analyzed based on English translation of the literature alone.
A good quote from that video: "The essence of the whole art is to feel, to experience what is, what happens, without saying anything to yourself about it."
