I'm not ignoring it at all. I'm just calling bullshit on the idea that the cost is anywhere near "huge".
1 developer, 75% time. That's it. If they are north of 2 developers they are doing something very wrong.
177 karma · joined March 6, 2011
1 developer, 75% time. That's it. If they are north of 2 developers they are doing something very wrong.
Just leave it up for christs sake. I wonder if this isn't about forcing people to other services.
Take the developers and let it keep going. No new commits, it works!
I'd love to see screenshots of how they imagine people now have access at their fingertips to summaries of all this information.
Going to each site individually or keeping things open in 20 tabs is a crap solution.
In any case, 99% of the designers I work with and 75% of the developers have iPhone/Mac and don't use either Android or gchat although they all have gmail/google accounts. So if they got an email they would be notified, otherwise, they never know.
Without the link it is also really hard to just tell people to go to G+. The way to join the hangout if you don't have a link is hard to find
This is not just an opinion, like I said, I actually tried to set up hangouts several times and these are the reasons it failed. Just my experience.
Also, Hangouts is G+ best feature but sadly it is really hard to get people together on it. Why when I invite someone do they not get an email or IM?? They only get notified within g+ itself and it isn't easy to find the invite. On recent jobs several times I've tried to get meetings together on g+ only to resort back to conference calls (!!? WTF??) every time because people couldn't get on the Hangout. That is a real shame.
Using html templates is good separation of concerns and js just isn't very good at expressing html structure. Jade would have been a much better choice IMO. Laconic does a good job of minimizing the problems with using js to programatically build dom in js but still doesn't come close to a proper templating language.
However, his "rebuttal" completely ignores the 2nd half of the original article's point: the new macbooks, and all ipad, are not recyclable despite what Apple says.
Not that Apple has a monopoly on callously diluting terms like "all natural", "recyclable", "free range", etc to increase profits and mislead consumers, thereby, eh, destroying the...EARTH. But still, even as the norm, it's pretty f-ing evil.
"In the absence of rigorous experimental evidence, I’m quite skeptical." - This is not logic. This is an arrogant and out of hand rejection of a hypothesis that has not yet been proven or disproven.
" “expert” who “totally believes” you’re a “different person” for having read books even if you don’t retain anything, with some flimsy feel-good reasoning such as the “extraordinary capacity for storage” that our brains have"
This is better reasoning than that put forth by the author by far. I love the quotes around "expert". WTF? Does he mean the PhD in Neuroscience and Prof at Tufts? That "expert"? The one who actually has studied this subject in depth?
As many other poster point out, we don't even remember most of our own lives but it is totally absurd to say our life experiences therefore don't influence us and that we shouldn't try to fill our lives with pleasurable moments.
It is unfortunate he defends working to remember more of what he reads with such a flawed and irritating argument because trying to remember what you read is an awesome and worthwhile pursuit. There is no need however to bash all of literary fiction and the reading 99.9% of people on this earth enjoy.
(ignore my previous tower of babel whining wrt this particular application which sounds completely awesome)
On the other hand, this really sucks. Javascript is just maturing to where it is really awesome! And there is a ton of collaboration among app developers because javascript was the only game in town for so long.
Of course people will continue to collaborate but not, I fear, at the same level. 3rd party libraries will continue to be available, but not as many will fit in so neatly with people coding in other languages.
This has already come up a few times with coffeescript and in a couple years when it is truly easy for people to work in other languages, we'll have a tower of babel effect.
JS is really good. It isn't that hard to learn if you already know other languages. It has warts but it is also very powerful so often it is worth it (check out the lines of code and speed vs other languages):
Edit: Actually I just realized your theory never really made any sense. What site throttles bandwidth just to you when you get downvoted? Nutty theory actually.
(the more people who know, the faster it will become cliche then go away)
1. block all IE9+ 2. spend lots of time and money making the site perfect in IE9+
What about this?
3. Have a quick glance and if things look 95% ok, let people know it is not optimized for IE9+ via a subtle notification. (That actually requires no more developer resources than blocking IE9 explicitly)
Or:
4. Set up a VM (it isn't that hard, and you only have to do it once) and just fix the obvious big stuff (which it doesn't appear there are any). Again, very cheap.
I'm no fan of IE or MS in general. Frankly, I'm a shameless hater. But I'm just not following your logic here. I would totally buy "I block MS because MS is evil, has caused me pain in the past, and now I am exacting revenge on them".
Hey that's a nice quote! You could practically sell anything with a line like that.
I'm no fan of IE. However explicitly blocking IE9 is just idiotic for any other reason. They could, at worst, just have a subtle notice letting people know it is optimized for Chrome/FF and their mileage may otherwise vary.
However, for the reason of getting Mac using hipsters excited, it was pretty brilliant.
(btw, I'm not a Mac or Windows user)
Disclaimers: (1) This is just a theory. (2) I actually like hipsters. I just recognize they can sometimes be manipulated. Like everyone, they have their buttons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...
The real issue is that most people think they are legally bound to always make the optimal financial move even if that means being immoral or unethical. Even worse is that many people think that doing so has a certain morality of its own, which IMO is completely, bizarro, nuts.
http://www.directorship.com/stout-shareholders-as-owners/ http://hbr.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-shareholder-capitalism/ar...
"...because we're super rich and can hire ultra clever accountants to abuse loopholes in your tax laws that were put in place by politicians paid by other super rich corporations specifically to get away with paying less taxes thereby grossly violating the trust of the American public and the spirit of taxation in general."
Are you still ok with that?
var env = {local1: function (){}, local2: "blah"};
js = new JSJS(env);
js.eval("console.log('I am evil!'); local1();");However if you really want speed I wonder if you could bridge access to certain useful functions by delegating access to, for example, sandboxedAnimate = function (sel, attr, duration, easing) {} in a closure. If you want to allow plugins on your site for example, 200X for basic stuff and full speed for jquery animations, etc would be more than enough 99.9% of the time.
Also if you use CSS animations where there would be zero slowdown. So make that plenty fast 99.99% of the time.