Do you have a source citing both Amazon and Google have not (re)built their sites on top of their public cloud services? Also, it is possible Amazon has built their website on top of AWS, and incorporating multi-region durability. This would make it possible for an AWS region to go down, and Amazon to still operate.
I was drinking with an Asian co-worker at work today and something somewhat relevant came up. A 3rd coworker asked my Asian coworker "Are you ok? Your face is red and puffy". And then he stated that Asians (saying all Asians is probably a generalization, but for this example let's assume it is true) lack an enzyme to process alcohol and that Asians are essentially allergic to alcohol. Under this definition, would it be racist to say that all other races except for Asians are inferior at processing alcohol? Even if the following is true: alcohol was less prevalent in Asian cultures and that is probably why they never evolved to possess the same enzyme, which was stated by the other coworker.
... what? Asians are the same species as every other race. The idea that Asians somehow did not evolve this particular thing has nothing to do with the genetic change over time that causes speciation/evolution. I think you grossly misunderstand evolution and that your remarks are ignorant (and I think many people would claim racist).
Nice use of the R-bomb there. And adroit use of weasel words ("some would claim") to give plausible deniability.
Unfortunately your objections make no sense. It's well established that some human subgroups have different physical adaptations (eg. lactase production) that have been naturally selected in the presence of local food sources or production methods. How is that unrelated to evolution?
There are evolutionary differences between the races, and the fear of sounding racist makes people say thinks that are untrue scientifically.
Example: When exposed to the sun, white people have a higher risk to get a skin cancer than black people (especially if they live in Australia). On the other hand, black people having a skin that filter more UV and make them more vulnerable to a Vitamin D deficiency (especially if they live in NYC).
This is simply because they evolved to adapt to different climates. Just claiming "no, there is no difference because we're all the same species" is plain wrong.
What is your point exactly? The article you link to states that the flush reaction is genetic, "appears to have been positively selected in the past" and has been hypothesized to "have conferred protection agains certain parasitic infections."
True that it may not be the reason they have flopped, but honestly every co-worker of mine that has worked at Microsoft states our review process drives performance above all else. And the sample size isn't small, I'm in SLU at Amazon.
It was researched by the military for interrogation purposes IIRC. I think they used human subjects for this so I doubt any lethal doses were given, and doubt even further that they would be published if so.
That is nothing compared to the quantities described in the article, both in measurement and experience (as mentioned). This is assuming you meant to type micrograms, as no one would have a club for 700 mg as no one would bother to measure at that dose, considering it is 7,000x the normal dose.
So your app that just got released and has 100 downloads should appear before an app that has been out for a longer period of time and has more downloads? I don't really think this makes sense from a user perspective, maybe fiddling with the search results once or twice to show recent apps, but it doesn't make sense to permanently move an app like yours up the list. Sorry if this comes off as harsh.
Fair enough @xshoppyx
I don't mean that a recent app should appear before others. But at least give opportunity to "users" (not apps) to discover alternatives to the apps they have been using or games they've been playing.
For example, on IOS, when you launch your app, you have a section where only the newest apps appear, at that give them enough exposure to sufficient traction if they worth it.
iTunes will play all of your songs without repeats until you have heard them all as-is. A user would simply go to their music collection, select the shuffle action, and then begin playing a song. No song will be repeated until all of them have been played, which you should have been able to take away if you read the OP or the comment thread. As for the fact that your app is $5, I will refrain from saying anything besides do not spam the link to it on HN please.
