Kickstarter may feel that for the audience for this announcement it is better to use an approximate percentage alone rather than a percentage plus flat fee description, and if you assume that $15 is at the low end of Kickstarter contribution levels, its pretty close to the point where 2.9%+$0.30 is 5%, so "about 3-5%" may well be a reasonably accurate description of the fee structure.
2.9% + $.30 of a $1000 purchase is ~3%. 2.9% + $.30 of $15 is closer to 5%. I'm not sure what the minimum purchase is on Kickstarter but that could explain it.
That hysterical because my Kickstarter got denied because they said my project was 'prohibited' because it was a financial service. It's actually an Open Source project: https://www.github.com/stackmonkey.
That hysterical because my Kickstarter got denied because they said my project was 'prohibited' because it was a financial service. It's actually an Open Source project: https://www.github.com/stackmonkey.
That hysterical because my Kickstarter got denied because they said my project was 'prohibited' because it was a financial service. It's actually an Open Source project: https://www.github.com/stackmonkey.
That hysterical because my Kickstarter got denied because they said my project was 'prohibited' because it was a financial service. It's actually an Open Source project: https://www.github.com/stackmonkey.
That hysterical because my Kickstarter got denied because they said my project was 'prohibited' because it was a financial service. It's actually an Open Source project: https://www.github.com/stackmonkey.
Depending on the size of the average transaction, that $0.30 could move the fee (taken as a percentage) into that bracket. Possibly kickstarter is just being a bit loose with the phrasing here, and possibly they're under a enterprise agreement with a different fee structure (they are going to do $1billion+ a year, so that wouldn't be a complete surprise).
It does make sense, but it is not factually correct.
Typically, (big) payment processors deal with different interchange fees for different card types (based off the BIN number-- premium cards, debit cards, reward cards).
Processors commonly group fee percentages into an easier scheme to sell to people.
"2.9% + .30" is a lot easier to reason and understand than "2.2% for Debit, 3.5% for AMEX, 2.9% for Bank of America" and so on.
So yes, different cards charge different interchange rates -- but the answer to the question lies in the fact that with small enough purchases, the 30 cents on top of the 2.9% could effectively increase the percentage to a higher rate.
The simple formula to calculate fees as a percentage of purchase would be y= (x*.029+.30)/x and it intercepts with 5% at about $14.28, which would suggest that the minimum contribution would be set around $15 to make their statement correct. A a much higher contribution of $300 would have a lower rate of approx 3%, as the cents become a rather unimportant part of the fee.
Why do processors like doing this? It's a way to subsidize micro-payments without creating convoluted fee schedules. They can collect ~33% of a $1 payment without advertising it as such.
Also there's a lot of stuff in Erie and Lafayette which are both fairly close and less expensive. In a Zillow search I found some 4 bedroom houses in Lafayette with an acre in the $400k region, a 20 min drive from being in town.
I think the reason is that it's a brand new language that has unimplemented and missing features. Regex as a first-class citizen seems like it absolutely fits into the goals that Swift has and I would be very surprised if its long-term exclusion is intended.
I agree more with the parent on this one. I would actually expect GCD to receive first class language features before regex. There are certain operations like @sync that made their way into objective-c and Swift can use some language features to implement very common patterns in iOS/OS X programming.
Then again, in Swift you can declare your own operator and call into NSRegularExpression.
This sounds a lot like the attitude that Palm CEO Ed Colligan had about Apple entering the phone market:
> We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.
> 15.3 “Enemies” within the context of a game cannot solely target a specific race, culture, a real government or corporation, or any other real entity.
If you could play as both sides it seems like they would allow it. While this rejection seems irrational, I don't think the point is that Germans and Russians are targeted, but that they are depicted as the only enemy.
Every conflict has at least two sides, and it's unthinkable that any game doesn't offend a group of people. However, it seems more reasonable that they should require "fairness" in the sense that both sides should be playable. This takes a game from having a perceived ideological stance to being more neutral, and I think that's the whole point here.
Russia and Germany are two separate nations. Nations that were on opposite sides of WWII, no less. I don't see how the game "solely" targets one specific group.
Sure, but they were on opposite sides for most of the time, and they inflicted horrendous casualties on each other (Germany suffered almost as many casualties in a single battle in the east as the entire war in the west, and Russia more so) and both committed horrible massacres on the civilian population of any neutral, conquered or enemy nation.
Given the numbers, saying Russia and Germany were on opposite sides in WW2 seems pretty accurate to me.
Why presume that the context of the game is the entire war? A lot of games and other media relating to the war focus on specific points in the war, and so your last statement doesn't necessarily apply to the game given the information conveyed in the article, specifically regarding the implication of historical inaccuracy.
why? It's the game's name, and it says a lot. It looks like a tabletop wargame, and they are many times named like that.
I believe it's usually because they focus on a single battle, a specific zone and/or a specific time. That title helps the buyer quickly know what the game is about (Wargamers are, many times, history buffs)
[EDIT] I stand corrected. I sometime get lost in the tree-like way the replies are showed.
I should have been more clear. I was responding to "Not all of WW2 - they jointly invaded Poland", the reference to Katyn, and in fact the entire ensuing discussion which ignores the fact that the game is set in a period in which the two countries were at war, in favor of demonstrating who has command of the most precise irrelevancies.
Yes, all of WW2 they were opposing each other. Just because they split Poland doesn't mean they weren't enemies, it was nothing more than opportunism.
While Hitler was busy carving up Poland, he was planning the entire time for how to bring Russia to its knees. At no point did he plan for anything but eventual confrontation with Russia.
If I give you a ride home today, while plotting your demise for tomorrow, we're not pals.
That's hindsight. They were allies. They signed a pact, and they traded. True Hitler was plotting to invade Russia, but from the Russian perspective Germany was not the enemy.
I wonder how non-Stalin or non-Communist Russia would have done vs. the Germans. Purging military leadership wasn't helpful, but industrial production was.
Some of us would, perhaps. Not the British though (although you have to wonder about what would happen if Germany got the bomb first). America would definitely be speaking whatever the hell the wanted to.
If only one nation is playable in the game, the other nation is singled out as "the enemy". If you can only play Germany, Russia is your enemy in the entire game.
However, I think that's a silly distinction to make - you can't just swap nations in every game, since the game mechanics for managing a Soviet nation or army could well be different from those of managing the 3rd German Empire.
It does if the player can only play as one of the factions. Especially if the factions are really called "Germans" and "Russians". The war was fought between the Axis and the Soviet Union, which included plenty of nations besides Germany and Russia. Also, "Germans" and "Russians" are not the same as "Germany" and "Russia" (there were Germans, for example, who fought against Germany too).
But the article doesn't say much about the game, so I don't know if this was the case.
Yes it looks like you are correct. By 1942 they were fighting against each other. I don't know what the game allows, but reading the article I got the impression that those entities were only depicted as enemies. If that's not the case then it appears to be a misapplication or mistake according to the app store rules.
Imagine you've got a game where the goal is to liberate prisoners from concentration camps being operated by a particular race. You're telling me Apple would be more likely to approve it if you could play as a defender of the camp and the attackers are the enemy.
We like having "bad" people to kill in our killing games. Having some moral (imaged or not) highground makes us feel justified in our killing. If we remove the perceived ideological stance and make the game more neutral doesn't that make the violence pointless? I like to feel good about my violence damn it!
I concede that the point you make is right. However...
DO NOT create computer games about the Holocaust. Even if well-intended, this would be incredibly tasteless.
One can certainly debate whether or not games about WW2 are problematic, but in the case of the Holocaust... trust me. It doesn't matter how elaborate and well-thought-through your argument for making the game is. It is still tasteless.
There are many films and books about the Holocaust, I don't think games should be treated any differently.
I do agree with the general sentiment that making games about the holocaust is probably not a good idea, but if someone did it and did it well, I wouldn't hesitate to play it. Not all games have to be trivial.
Agreed. Just throwing in some concentration camps and gas chambers in a tower defense game would be unneeded and tasteless. However an realistic game where you had to escape from a concentration camp or aid escapees that employed a lot of stealth(Thief) elements with realistic/gritty world (DayZ comes to mind but without Zombies) and the sequences could be based on some of the true life stories.
Yes! Gblame is fantastic. Xcode also has some pretty good git blame, git log, and version comparison support directly in the editor. I find that kind of thing fantastically useful for understanding why a section of code is the way it is.
Magit can do most common actions with one or 2 strokes, like `cc` for commit, `ca` for amend etc. Push, pull fetch etc work like a breeze and wont lock up emacs till its complete.
Sometimes I forget the keys, then I either enable menu bar mode to quickly look it up or switch to eshell for a while
Yeah, once I'm in magit-status, I type "g" for update, "fa" for fetch all, and if I need to commit, "S" to add all changes, C-u S to add all unstaged files, and using "n" and "p" to move through the list, I use "4" and "2" to toggle between showing/hiding changes per file (sometimes "3" if I want to see only part of a file's changes). When Im' done, I do "c" to type a commit message, and "cc" to commit. Often I need to fix a commit message typo, so "c" and "ca" lets me amend. Then I just type "PP" to push my changes! If I need to force-push because of an amended commit that I pushed 2 seconds ago, I'll do "P-fP". And interactive rebasing is really easy too, with "E". But yeah I've already gone on too long here.
The central part of magit is `magit-status'. You do most of the things from there. It even allows you to stage small parts of a diff (like git add -i) simply by selecting the part in the status view and staging it.
Yeah, and that part is quite nice. It may even be more useful than the gutters within files. I have to admit, in this particular sub-area, Atom has clearly done better and made ST3 look bad in comparison. This is great because it shows improvement, and I'm all for making our tools better. (I mention this because it's the first time I see Atom actually excel over ST3.)
"I didn't really think I'd be able to write this [program], but somehow I was able too. Ruby is scary, isn't it? I wonder if you could write this in another language?"
Chinese and Japanese grammar have very little relation to each other - about as much as Chinese and English. (The alphabets are, of course, very similar, as the Japanese adopted Chinese characters.)
The Japanese use Chinese characters. The Japanese also have alphabets. (At least two.) But Chinese characters aren't exactly an alphabet and the Japanese don't use Chinese characters directly as an alphabet, though many characters are based on Chinese ones.
Since we're being technical, Japanese does not have any alphabet as such; an alphabet has, by definition, a 1 to 1 correspondence between a single character and a sound. Japanese uses syllabaries ('kana' in Japanese), where almost all characters represent more than 1 sound. Hiragana is typically used to write Japanese words and grammatical particles, while katakana is typically used to write foreign words and for special emphasis, roughly analogous to how boldface type is used in English. Both of these kana are derived from Chinese characters, greatly simplified, though the relationship is somewhat distant.
Japanese also uses a third writing system called kanji, also not an alphabet, whose name literally means "Han [Chinese] characters" in Japanese. Kanji are logographs, where one character represents one entire word or concept rather than sounds.
Most kanji are identical or very similar to modern Chinese characters and are readily intelligible to a Chinese reader, at least in a general sense, though some have diverged a bit.
Grammar is another matter entirely. Japanese is a language isolate, a language that is not related to any other known language. (Someone will reply that it's distantly related to Korean, but this is a fringe theory in linguistics that is not widely accepted.) Chinese and Japanese are not grammatically related at all, and any similarity between their syntaxes is coincidental.
>a 1 to 1 correspondence between a single character and a sound.
While you're correct that the Japanese writing system is not an alphabet, I feel like your definition here is so vague it almost contradicts your point. After all, each kana character has a much closer correspondence with a particular "sound" than many actual alphabets.
So to clarify, the characters of an alphabet (notionally) correspond to particular phonemes.
At the least, Korean has voiced-versus-non-voiced-depending-on-word-position changes, and IIRC there are other similar rules (about changing pronunciation in certain contexts) as well.
> Japanese is a language isolate, a language that is not related to any other known language. Someone will reply that it's distantly related to Korean, but this is a fringe theory in linguistics that is not widely accepted
When using some strict definition of "related" (e.g. "neither language is a strict descendent of the other"), that may be true, but anybody that's studied both languages has probably noticed that there's an eery similarity between the two, even if it's merely the result of many centuries of cross-pollenization....
My own experience is not so great, I've only studied Korean a bit, but I did study it in Japanese (which I know fairly well), and the similarity made it a lot easier, because so many things corresponded 1-to-1... However Korean friends that are fluent in Japanese constantly rave about how easy it was for them to learn, not just because of the huge amount of shared Chinese-derivative vocabulary (many words are completely identical, with formulaic changes in pronunciation), but because the whole structure of grammar, sentence/conversation-planning, idioms, etc, is so similar that a huge proportion of their Korean instincts pretty much just work as-is in Japanese.
Spoken Japanese and Chinese have little to no relation, except for Chinese words imported into Japanese.
Hiragana, however, is derived from Chinese characters thousands of years ago. The Chinese characters were used in Japanese writing to write words phonetically.
Wow, cool to see you post this. I had the pleasure of playing with him in that video! Many others have said it, but he was a joy to be around and always kind and generous.
I'm surprised that he provides five versions of the method definition syntax and none of them are what Apple does and what I consider to be the standard:
No problem! Have you commonly come across all these variations? I have seen a couple different things but my experience working in objective-c written by others has been limited, so my impression was that the above was more widely accepted.
"and Stripe, our payments processor, will apply credit card processing fees (about 3-5%)."
Why 3-5%? Is there something I'm missing?