If a client ever approached me without having some sort of direction or plan or strategy in mind, I would never work for them. I want clients who know what they want, who I can partner with and provide appropriate guidance and input, and who will fight me if and when I make a decision that doesn't align with their goals (though, obviously I do my research and work to avoid such a situation).
My boss was involved in preparing the draft proposal that this bill is based on. He has over a decade of experience on both sides of the VC/start up fence. His experience bringing the team that created Summify to Canada from Romania was a catalyst for this bill. Like all things, it is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.
Agreed. As someone who was pushed out of Canada because of visa restrictions back in 2008 (and has been living in NYC since), I'm glad to finally see some steps being made here. By coincidence I just got back from a weekend back in Vancouver and had forgotten how much I miss the place- but as someone more tech-oriented, I'm still working out how this could play to my advantage.
Again, feel free to bump up the text size if it doesn't work for you. The site is designed to adjust its layout based on the font size, so the line length will never change. One of the best features of the web is it gives users the ability to adjust these types of things based on their own personal needs.
All of that said, I do intend to redesign the site with a larger font size. But, in the meantime, a little CMD (or CRTL) + + will go a long way ;)
I received a great email from Andrew de Andrade, a fellow Hacker News reader, on why what I perceived to be censorship wasn't, and how it was my fault as the link submitter for not providing a title that provided better utility to the community.
Please, accept my sincerest apologies for my misunderstanding and for jumping to conclusions. This article was not written out of malice towards Hacker News, but rather as an attempt to bring clarity to what is and isn't accepted in this community.
I've added a note on the post apologizing for offending anyone, and inviting anyone who would like to discuss the issue further to reach me via email (hello [at] patdryburgh.com)
“I can see why the original headline might have been edited for clarity - the mental leap from "porno site" to "productivity porn" is non-obvious.”
Perhaps it is non-obvious reading only the title, but the article did go on to clarify what the intent of using the word "porno" was.
My problem with it is that editing the title in this manner sets up an expectation for the reader, and could cause the reader to become upset when they see the actual title has the word "porno" in it. As I said, the article clarifies what I mean, but if someone is sensitive to the use of that type of language, then they may feel they have been duped into looking at content they wouldn't otherwise look at.
As I pointed out in the article, this doesn't appear to be a common experience. I couldn't find anyone else online complaining about Hacker News censoring their content. But, I wanted to make clear what my intentions were, and hopefully open up a discussion that could possibly lead to needed clarity on exactly what the rules of this community are.
No, the site was a member of Fusion Ads starting in January 2011. Before that, a company that made hardware for managing desk clutter sponsored the blog.
>It always makes me a bit sad when any site is taken offline. I haven't even heard of Simple Desks before, but it still makes me sad that it is gone.
I'm very, very sympathetic to this issue, and agree that it hurts when any site goes down. However, Simple Desks was mostly a curated gallery of what already exists on the internet. A quick Google search for "Simple Desks" will turn up basically the same thing.
The other question to ask is whether permanence is a value worth holding for all things. Is it really worth holding onto all of that email? (This is a personal question, for everyone to answer, not for one person to dictate over others.)
My friend wrote a great piece on this recently (http://patrickrhone.com/2011/12/20/permanently-impermanent). It reflects on the freedom of not worrying about losing everything. He doesn't advocate being complacent, but simply acknowledging that no system is 100% sure to maintain our bits.
The other question to ask is whether permanence is a value worth holding for all things. Is it really worth holding onto all of that email? (This is a personal question, for everyone to answer, not for one person to dictate over others.)
In the present case, hasn't this in fact been dictated?
This was an option I considered and discussed with a friend who is well known in the minimalism/productivity space.
To me, it's actually more of a moral issue: is keeping a site like Simple Desks online good, bad, or neutral to the world. I'm sure it's different for different people, but I just couldn't shake the feeling that in the end it was detrimental to people's time.
We have better things to do with our time, and much more beautiful works of art to get enjoyment from.
Of course you are welcome to do whatever you want. I find taking it to the moral extreme strange though.
That leaves you little in the way of daily activities besides pure charitable work. Does your short film make the world a better place? I doubt it.
It sounds like it comes down to what you enjoy, and that's great. The best motivation. Simple Desks though seems like the kind of site that some might get great joy out of.
That's a fallacy of consumption. The assumption that consuming media, whether it be art, movies, books, or anything that isn't the direct act of creating, is inherently wasteful.
> and much more beautiful works of art to get enjoyment from.
Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. The words and hours spent on the Mona Lisa are wasteful when you consider what it could have been spent on. Practical things.
Alone, consumption is as wasteful as creation. Creating something no one uses or views... does a tree alone in the woods make a sound. In a very real sense, one cannot create without consuming.
Do not belittle consumption, for it is the beginning of creation.
"Is it a waste of time if an artist spends a lifetime only thinking, then in the end write one poem that turns out to inspire thousands of people."
If people are coming to the site, then it has value. What is detrimental is what causes harm. What puts a smile on someone face, even if it is a simple desk, is probably more therapeutic than Prosac.
