Looking at the headline, my first thought wasn't that I'd be able to run arbitrary iOS apps, but that it was a project with that goal.
To me it was a bait-and-switch, where not only was it not a goal, but Christina is somewhat rude to people who thought it might be a goal (sorry Christina).
"I have this cool tech that could be used to run iOS apps -- and I have no intention of ever making it run iOS apps, because that's a crazy idea, now go away for even thinking about it!"
System emulators (ahem, WINE, but tons of others exist) that do the level of emulation Christina scoffs at have been around for a long time, and it's very much not a crazy idea to start one. By yourself, maybe it is, but given the amount of hype this generated quickly, there would obviously be other people willing to jump on board.
I hate you! More seriously git is super easy to begin to use, and even more so for small projects and / or projects with a small number of contributors.
Setup? git init; git add . (if no unwanted binary in the tree)
Something interesting has been done? git commit -am "rock more"
New source file? git add file; git commit -m "new foobar module"
What value does it bring? Great revert capability, bisecting bugs, and so over. I agree most of the time I don't need it, but well, when I do it is handy. It is like being insured.
The tone of the article implies that TED is somehow suppressing the dissemination of this speech because it's content is somehow too controversial to handle.
I declare it inane because the speech described by the article isn't very controversial at all.
Realy Guys I give the poster who did not know the diference bwtween inane and insane - some valid feedback instead if insulting his lack of knowledge of english and I get voted down?
Perhaps he simply misread, it happens. To assume he doesn't know the difference and then suggest he "buy a dictionary" is a tad bit rude, which may account for the downvotes.
Yet you just made no argument for why his arguments are weak, while yours are: jobs create consumers and consumers create jobs, but in your equation absurdly rich people and increasing inequality does not seem to be needed...
My very first sentence explains why I think his argument is weak.
I agree, I have stated no position on the absurdly rich and increasing inequality. I think it is unnecessary to stray into this area in order to prove or disprove whether businesses or the wealthy create jobs. Either a business or a wealthy person can or cannot create a job regardless of the taxation laws du jour. He has categorically stated that they cannot. I think this is totally incorrect.
No, he stated that they do not. Businesses don't hire employees they don't need. They can, but if they try it at any appreciable scale relative to their business, they will go out of business.
It's not about what can happen. It's about what does happen. And what does happen, is that employers hire employees when they need them. Not just because they've made money, nor just because they got to keep more of the money they make via changes in taxation.
They could. But they don't. There's decades of data and research on this. It's not really debatable. Tax cuts do not translate into jobs. It's never happened. The increase in wealth of the wealthy does not translate into jobs. It's never happened. Consumer demand and business expansion to meet that demand, does translate into jobs. It always happens.
The question is how, or even whether you should try, to stimulate consumer demand when unemployment is high. (And the follow-on: what problems does that (in)action create)
