The issue there is that the value of those tags decreases if the majority just accept those tags suggested (which from what I've seen, most users do). There's no penalty to giving a tag, so if someone says "What to help one of your mates get a job by spending <1 second hitting a button" there's no reason not to (beyond your personal principles at least).
To fix the system you either need to limit the number of endorsements you can give (e.g. you're allowed to give 3 endorsements (to anyone) for each contact you have), or have some way to force a comparison (e.g. is A or B a more competent Java developer in the context of Gaming?).
How to fix endorsements - rather than asking if someone has a skill, take two people in your circle claiming the same skill and ask who's more competent at that. Repeat this for all people in your circle with that skill and you can bubble sort people into who's best in your eyes. Next take those people's standing within their respective circles, perhaps weighted by some measure (e.g. people working in the same field's opinion counts more) and you start to get a good idea of how people compare to one another for the skills you're interested in. Even if those people don't have anyone in common you can use the 6 degrees of separation to use their connections' connections to approximate their standing compared to one another.
(of course, this assumes that you wish endorsements to have meaning; if you're just using it to increase user engagement with your site the current method works fine - until people get fed up with putting in redundant effort).
Has anyone considered a SCRUM funding model? i.e. Similar to how Patreon's used to fund ongoing deliverables from YouTube artists (among others) the team could have patrons sign up to pay a smaller amount on a fortnightly basis, with the development team announcing their goal for that sprint, then taking funding on delivery. This gives patrons the option to back out further down the project if things go off course/change, thus reducing risk in committing to a failing project, whilst allowing other patrons to sign up down the line as the project starts to look increasingly feasible.
Optionally small awards could be given per pledge, whilst larger rewards (e.g. your own phone) given to those who've given a certain amount by the end of the project / the pledged amounts could be discounted from the resulting phone's price.
One minor "bug" / missing feature; I have two monitors at different resolution; when moving the browser (maximised) from my laptop monitor (1440 x 900) to second display (1280 x 1024) the staves are put on a different line to the instrument names. If I refresh the browser on my second monitor then move to my laptop screen all works fine though.
The same issue exists if I resize my browser; i.e. currently window.onresize events aren't handled.
Great work though - and nice choice of pieces too.
I like the way this has been presented, but have to admit that I disagree with the point - if someone's willing to give me something for free (monetary) in exchange for reading info I pass through their services I'm fine with that - I just won't use their service to send anything I don't want them to read.
There are good arguments for privacy, and for people/organisations being open about how they use any personal data they collect, but in this scenario you've willingly and knowingly signed up to a contract; and in doing so invalidated your right to be upset by the required "payment method" of information.
Build your solution suitably decoupled, such that if you lose access to the API you can easily switch to another provided. Ideally build solutions across two competitors services such that if you get any surprises it's clear that your solution works / users are able to migrate to the alternate provider.
For authentication I'd argue in some ways it's better to provide the option of third-party. This means users don't have to submit credentials to you. Given most people (against advice to the contrary) use the same username and password for most sites signing up to an unknown company's service feels riskier as they're then giving that company their credentials, which someone may then try on other sites - having a token which allows them to sign in with their Google/FB/Twitter/etc account saves this worry / only requires the user to hit an "authorise" button.
When a company does what's asked of it by a government and people are upset with the company something's seriously wrong. A company's main priority is typically to make money within the bounds of the law. A government's should be to improve the quality of life and uphold the moral values of its citizens.
I have a feeling had Apple been first on board rather than last the journalist would argue that Microsoft were evil for not complying with a government request and that Apple clearly had the vision to help the nation's security, but maybe that's just me?
Be that as it may, I cannot change your government. I can, however, stop relying on any of the companies who are complicit in spying on me.
The problem here is the divide between national government and international corporations, where the corporations' actions influence far more people than the direct actions of the national government.
I cannot exert any influence over a government that isn't mine, but I can decide which companies I support and entrust with my data and business. Your dichotomy of government vs company is therefore not correct. I can (and should) be upset about both.
Hopefully in your thinking there's some limits to what the company would do when asked of it by the gov't. For me it would be anything obviously against the spirit of the Constitution.
Agreed. My argument was that the government asking the company to do something immoral would be more of a concern to me than the company doing it, since the government is supposed to hold a position of trust with its society whilst the company is generally assumed to represent its owners and/or investors interests.
My guess is enterprises were scared of going the SaaS route; partly as this model is still relatively new, but mainly because companies like to keep their data in house (or at least need the option to easily get hold of a regular backup / with some way to quickly restore it should the vendor go under).
Infrastructure costs. We had too many users on the free tier (5 users for free) and our server costs went through the roof. We didn't know how to find investment and my business partner needed cash so took a contract job.
