3 ms·

Ok, it seems pretty reasonable, when you consider how easy it is to obtain five dollars.

by cwp 13y ago

jamesaguilar 13y ago
I can see it MAYBE being an issue in countries where income isn't as high as the U.S., but at least for any American, or anyone in any industrialized country, the $5 fee to get an account is not a significant impediment.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  "at least for any American, or anyone in any industrialized country" Yeah, nobody can't possibly be that poor, eww! And who needs talented people in the third world making great extensions and possibly finding better jobs or at least global recognition that way.
  - victorhooi 13y ago
    Err, I think you should think through your argument logically a bit more... You're using a "Think of the poor!" argument, just like they use "Think of the children!". It's a complete strawman. Put it this way - if they can program a Chrome extension - that means they probably have access to a reasonably modern computer. And working internet access. And they they're probably fairly educated. And they had all these things for some time, since this isn't the sort of thing you can learn and hack up in 5 minutes, unless your name happens to be Jeff Dean. So yes, I'd say that the above group probably does have access to $5. We're not talking about illiterate villagers in Africa or rural China here with no running water and one OLPC for the village. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something to help those people (Red Cross does awesome work here, btw, good people to donate to) - however, I somehow doubt that programming Chrome Extensions is at the top of those people's list of priorities.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Yeah, I was getting a bit ahead of myself there. Fair enough. Also, Firefox. But still: > So yes, I'd say that the above group probably does have access to $5. This doesn't mean it's not still a week's of income for where they're from, and money missed dearly. Even if it's not the "the top priority", which I never claimed, I find shrugging it off because it's (supposedly) not a problem for anyone in the first world a bit meh. Would it still deter driveby spammers if it cost 3$? 2$? Are there other ways to ensure this? To not even go further because "meh, just five bucks", kinda sucks. On the other hand, it's also stupid to tell Google how much to charge, let them suck :P

Ok, it seems pretty reasonable, when you consider how easy it is to obtain five dollars.

by cwp 13y ago

Ok, it seems pretty reasonable, when you consider how easy it is to obtain five dollars.

I can see it MAYBE being an issue in countries where income isn't as high as the U.S., but at least for any American, or anyone in any industrialized country, the $5 fee to get an account is not a significant impediment.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
"at least for any American, or anyone in any industrialized country" Yeah, nobody can't possibly be that poor, eww! And who needs talented people in the third world making great extensions and possibly finding better jobs or at least global recognition that way.
- victorhooi 13y ago
  Err, I think you should think through your argument logically a bit more... You're using a "Think of the poor!" argument, just like they use "Think of the children!". It's a complete strawman. Put it this way - if they can program a Chrome extension - that means they probably have access to a reasonably modern computer. And working internet access. And they they're probably fairly educated. And they had all these things for some time, since this isn't the sort of thing you can learn and hack up in 5 minutes, unless your name happens to be Jeff Dean. So yes, I'd say that the above group probably does have access to $5. We're not talking about illiterate villagers in Africa or rural China here with no running water and one OLPC for the village. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something to help those people (Red Cross does awesome work here, btw, good people to donate to) - however, I somehow doubt that programming Chrome Extensions is at the top of those people's list of priorities.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    Yeah, I was getting a bit ahead of myself there. Fair enough. Also, Firefox. But still: > So yes, I'd say that the above group probably does have access to $5. This doesn't mean it's not still a week's of income for where they're from, and money missed dearly. Even if it's not the "the top priority", which I never claimed, I find shrugging it off because it's (supposedly) not a problem for anyone in the first world a bit meh. Would it still deter driveby spammers if it cost 3$? 2$? Are there other ways to ensure this? To not even go further because "meh, just five bucks", kinda sucks. On the other hand, it's also stupid to tell Google how much to charge, let them suck :P