{
        "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
            "price": {
                "type": "number",
                "multipleOf": 0.01,
                "minimum": 0
            },
            "currency": {
                "type": "string",
                "enum": ["EUR", "USD", "GBP"],
                "default": "EUR"
            }
        }
    }

This almost exists in Portland, OR at least: many items have an option for "one-day pickup": https://smile.amazon.com/gp/campus?campusId=CAMPUS_POR

I say "almost" because it's not same-day: it's overnight.

PHP:

> ▶ /usr/bin/php -v

> PHP 5.6.24 (cli) (built: Aug 8 2016 16:58:37)

> Copyright (c) 1997-2016 The PHP Group

> Zend Engine v2.6.0, Copyright (c) 1998-2016 Zend Technologies

Ruby:

> ▶ /usr/bin/ruby -v

> ruby 2.0.0p648 (2015-12-16 revision 53162) [universal.x86_64-darwin16]

Which guideline are you thinking of? My search for "SMS" only found two unrelated guidelines:

> 1.1.6 False information and features, including inaccurate device data or trick/joke functionality, such as fake location trackers. Stating that the app is “for entertainment purposes” won’t overcome this guideline. Apps that enable anonymous or prank phone calls or SMS/MMS messaging will be rejected.

> 3.2.2 (iv) Collecting funds within the app for charities and fundraisers. Apps that seek to raise money for such causes must be free on the App Store and may only collect funds outside of the app, such as via Safari or SMS.

2. I'd give notice, citing the change in performance review and withdrawal of the promotion/raise as the cause. It's one thing to work in what appear to be horrific conditions, it's another to then be retroactively denied compensation.

The main X factor is when you give notice, and that's up to you: personally, I'd probably give notice immediately and see if the company counters with an offer to reinstate what you were promised. Otherwise, start looking for another job and give notice as soon as you get an offer.

This will certainly come up during your next job interview, so you don't want to burn any bridges or get too emotional about this (even though you have the right to, for sure):

- Be calm and factual when explaining why you're giving notice, to prevent poisoning the reference: your performance review was changed after the fact, and you were denied compensation and an advancement opportunity you were previously promised. In any situation, this is a reasonable and justified reason to leave a job.

- Do not give K as your reference. Give one of your other superiors.

- When explaining why you left your previous company during interviews, you don't want to throw them under the bus. Explain that you were looking to advance and grow as a developer, but those opportunities were not available at the previous company.

    # frozen_string_literal: true
    str = 'foo'
    str << 'bar'

    # main.rb:3:in `
': can't modify frozen String (RuntimeError)

    str = 'foo'.freeze
    str << 'bar'

    # main.rb:2:in `
': can't modify frozen String (RuntimeError)

You can also trigger this behavior globally with the --enable=frozen-string-literal option.

[1]: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/v2_3_0/NEWS#L17-L26

[2]: http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.2.3/Object.html#method-i-freeze

They are prohibited by App Store review guidelines 5.5 and 5.6:[1]

> 5.5 Apps that use Push Notifications to send unsolicited messages, or for the purpose of phishing or spamming will be rejected

> 5.6 Apps cannot use Push Notifications to send advertising, promotions, or direct marketing of any kind

Apple has responded positively to reports I've made regarding those guidelines, but it's hard to say how much of an effect it had. The DM push notifications I reported seemed to come out of the blue and were never repeated: the company could've been told by Apple to stop or they could've just been doing it as a test.

[1]: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pus...

While it's relatively common for people to associate the word "bankruptcy" with the "we ran out of money so we need to liquidate any assets we have left and walk away from our debts" (Chapter 7) or "we can't pay our debts on time so we need a payment plan" (Chapter 13) types of bankruptcy, and it is true that 50 Cent also filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it's a bit disingenuous to say that it doesn't mean they don't have any money.

A Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a tool to protect a debtor's assets and give it time to come up with a plan to pay back its creditors: in this case, the plan proposed by Quirky is to sell off all of those assets at auction so that it can raise enough money to pay off its debt. The Chapter 11 filing is being used as a way to say to potential buyers "don't worry, these assets won't be taken from the company before the sale can close."

They are otherwise very much broke and are counting on the sale to raise the money to pay off their debts. If they can't sell quickly enough, it'll likely convert into a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Here's a good overview of what's going in: http://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resources-1562.html

After an IP battle that was settled out of court.[1] Valve also does not use any of Blizzard's assets in Dota 2.

[1]: http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/11/blizzard-and-valve-settle...

Hyperbolic imagery aside, the expectation is already there. They can't just walk away from the project with a shrug should it fail: they have a contractual obligation to demonstrate that they did not squander their funds and to provide the best possible outcome to their backers. If they fail to do that, the terms of the agreement allow backers to seek legal action:

> The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers.

In this case, Matchstick's project creators have assessed that they have enough money to pay everyone back, so they're doing exactly what the terms of the Kickstarter agreement between backers and project owners have obligated them to do: provide the best possible resolution to backers by, in part, returning the money.

Another project may determine that they can't pay everyone back: in that case, they're subject to the requirement that they "demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised". If they can't do that to the satisfaction of every backer, they're still on the hook. That's why a lot of times, project failures will have a note about providing a refund to anyone who requests one instead of Matchstick's strategy of proactively refunding everyone.

They should as it's one of the remedies Kickstarter requires projects to pursue should they be unable to complete the project and fulfill the rewards:[1]

> If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers. A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if:

> [other required remedies]

> * they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form.

[1]: https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use#backer-creator

> .. after extensive statistical analysis of my G+ polling, I've come to the inescapable conclusion that internet polls are bad.

> Big surprise.

> But "Hurr durr I'ma sheep" trounced "I like online polls" by a 62-to-38% margin, in a poll that people weren't even supposed to participate in. Who can argue with solid numbers like that? 5,796 votes from people who can't even follow the most basic directions?

You may disagree with me saying "a lot", and that's fair, but I don't think it's fair to say it's "wrong info" and NikiC's characterization that it has "no direct effect on userland devs" is disingenuous, given the RFC lists several changes to syntax and behavior: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/abstract_syntax_tree#changes_to_syn...

This is not meant to be an endorsement of this method, but PHP <7.0 uses a single-pass compilation where the parser itself does the opcode compilation. A lot of the buggy and quirky behavior PHP exhibits (at least when that behavior is unintentional) is the result of this process.

Like a lot of extant PHP, there's no real reason it was done this way: it's just the method Rasmus et al happened to program the original engine, and it's grown organically since then. With the AST, phpng, and the uniform variable syntax, I'd argue PHP7's main feature is finally getting around to correcting the sins of the past.