Why on Earth would your refrigerator have to be online to keep track of food expiration dates? Can't you use a tablet, phone or PC to keep track of that?
I think you're missing the point. The point is that Spotify is bringing in more money for their supplier and the supplier is not not paying their employees (the artists) more for it. The implication is that the supplier sucks, not Spotify because it is widely believed that record companies screw their artists already. This is just another example of that.
Yeah, but you might care more about how much The Mowgli's make because they aren't a huge established star and you want them to be able to keep making music you like.
Uhhhh, most music services show how many times a song has been played to the users, how do you think they don't show that to record companies?
I think a better question is why are you searching for an address, getting the wrong address, and calling that a desirable feature? The reason you would search for an address is because you have been given the address, or vaguely remember it. In either case it isn't obvious that you want the software to guess at what you meant and possibly fool you in to going to the wrong place.
Does it always take you 80 hours to rollback a change set?
The point is that the CPU and the motherboard are all manufactured in such a way that the processor can work at a clock cycle so damn fast. That is precision. Not everything is about work/time. To your analogy, it's more like saying "We can have the engine do ten bazillion RPM! That's a quality engine! However, if you try to drive at that RPM, any flaw in the system can cause a huge amount of damage, so don't expect to drive it at that speed."
No you aren't the only one. That's the way I feel about making computers too. "Why couldn't the government design the iPad?"
IP addresses and DNS servers are not the internet. It's the network. And you can build your network any way you like and avoid sending traffic through the US.
In what language is + a unary operator?
I disagree, as there are an infinite number of shades we would describe as green.
Um, what exactly do you think happened in Speaker for the Dead if not Ender speaking for the dead Marcao?
My point is that it seems to me that if you are doing something with it that you couldn't do to any type, you shouldn't be using an anonymous type. I would genuinely like to know what a valid case is for using an anonymous type where later you will be accessing one of its properties by name. If you pass that anonymous type to another function it will have to be an [object] anyway, and if its just the same function, build the properties for the anonymous type before initializing the anonymous type. You can't pass an anonymous type to another function as its type (and it would be stupid if you could), and you can't cast from an object to the anonymous type (which would lead to the errors you mentioned above). So, within the same function, your anonymous type may as well be an object instead of a var.
Well, in my defense the GP to my comment was referring to var in C#, so I responded with how I would handle a situation of renaming the type in C#.
Why would you be using an anonymous type if you needed a reference to it that couldn't be handled with the [object] type? That sounds down-right wonky.