jyiin

Try http://fountain.com. There are a lot of home / kitchen experts available.

We were just encouraged to take a different approach. Not rejected. That's why I'm curious to see if others have had a different experience if they've been up front about what they're doing.

There's a programming language named Turing that was developed specifically as a teaching language. Many students in Ontario were taught it in high school. I always found the syntax clean and approachable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_%28programming_language%...

You can download a runtime here http://compsci.ca/holtsoft/

This approach makes a lot of sense. I tried something similar with an iOS app and was surprised to find that Apple frowns upon this practice. They'd prefer that developers do usability testing beforehand instead of native A/B testing in the wild. Does anyone know if Apple has clarified this position?

It would be much more developer friendly to encourage this and would ultimately lead to better experiences for users.

If we assume there's an even chance of having a boy or girl, the proportion of boys to girls is still 50/50. It's basic stats. These are independent events.

I work at Mint. We do use a lot of open source, but as others in this thread have pointed out, we only need to open source our code if we distributed modified GPL-like code (which we don't).

The Wesabe code is completely unrelated. We heavily use MySQL, Hibernate, Spring, XMLC and YUI.

We have contributed code back to the community in some cases, such as YUI.

If you want your JavaScript to be more Minty, I suggest you take a look at Matt Snider's excellent blog (http://www.mattsnider.com). He has code samples that are very similar or identical to what is actually in the Mint codebase. He explains the rationale behind a lot of the design decisions and to my knowledge, it's free for anyone to use.

That is incorrect. Patzer offered stock in his company to the previous holder of the mint.com domain, which ended up being very lucrative.