ysapir

Every company operating in every country is bound to that country's laws. So Google in China has to accept the Chinese government demands, and Google Maps in Israel already cooperates with security restrictions in Israel, just like Waze probably cooperates with the NSA for its Palo Alto office.

However, Waze using a dynamic map is able to provide mapping for the West Bank as well. While Google opened up its navigation app a few months ago in Israel, it has not been opened for the West Bank (possibly because of map licensing restrictions that similarly prevented opening it for Israel for so long).

That isn't clear to me, but in any case, they seem to be talking about a new type of peer review process, which is more immediate -- something akin to forking on github or editing a wiki maybe. I'm not sure.

From the article - "They argue that the current journal system slows down the publication of science research. Peer review rarely takes less than a month, and journals often ask for papers to be rewritten or new analysis undertaken, which stretches out publication for half a year or more. While quality control is necessary, thanks to the Internet, articles don’t need to be in a final form before they appear. ... “We want to go after peer review,” CEO Toni Gemayel told us."

And I am saying, quality control is essential, and yet an open internet-based process would mean a lot of people with pet theories they want to drive could game the system. I agree with the poster who wrote that you need to take into consideration the author and his caliber even in scientific journals -- the quality control problem is a problem already today really -- but the effort necessary to get an article to publication raises the quality somewhat (and in turn prestige of relevant journals).

Quality control is essential. I have an interest in linguistics. But on the internet, some of the linguistics arguments are ridiculous. There are websites that claim that English (and all world languages) are descendant from Turkish. It is rubbish. In all types of subjects you find people with these pet theories, and they can be very prolific, putting their opinion on wikipedia or wikia or wherever, on websites, in discussions, and there can even be a following. In software, you can tell rubbish. It compiles or it does not. It has a lot of bug requests or it does not. This does not map to science. You can't run a scientific article through a compiler to tell if it is good or bad. You can't tell if a new physics theory is reputable or some science fiction. A theory may be 10 years old, and the professor who wrote it unable to respond to all the queries, "bug requests," but it is still valuable. And a prolific pseudo-science author may have little "bug requests" because no one reputable who knows something about the subject has any time to deal with his nonsense. Without effective quality control, there will be no science. The article had no real solution to the problem.

In my view, Android does slightly better routing and search. Waze has a much better UI/UX experience.

EDIT: And Waze does not do walking/public transportation directions.

There is also the endorsements, which LinkedIn can use to measure how well you know the person.

The point of an MVP is to control costs, to avoid spending millions of $ and precious time to develop something that no one wants. The first step in avoiding spending that much money, is to be able to quantify the costs of building an MVP.

Besides, a stealth fighter jet cannot be a MVP. Maybe you have better maneuvering technology, or targeting technology, or maybe you have teleportation technology. That would be the basis of your MVP. If it still costs above $100,000, then minimize again, and again and again.

The policy does not make that distinction.

An app generally needs a backend and it is clear some of the policies are directed towards not the app itself but how it interacts with the backend. These same guidelines are meant to be used to stop apps such as malware games that collect contacts and send them to the backend to be used as spam email lists.

How would this work out in a scenario where the customers are a subset of the users. Say, a restaurant menu service that provides restaurants with enhanced menus for their clients. The customers are the restaurants and restaurant owners. But the users include the clients who actually use the menus and may have their own interests and considerations. You may revenue-share with the restaurants, but the customers are still the restaurants. Now there may be questions on this list, where the customers' interests and pain are at odds with their clients' interests and pain. What happens when the customer is an enterprise level business, and you can't speak to them daily or weekly or maybe even monthly?