idonthaveaname

> We have the power of observation - where we can plot what is safe to use recreationally...

Wikipedia says this better than I can: In 2007 [Dr David] Nutt published a controversial study on the harms of drug use in The Lancet.[12] Eventually, this led to his sacking from his position in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD); see government positions below. Subsequently, Nutt and a number of his colleagues who had subsequently resigned from the ACMD founded the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs.[13]

Here are the citations: [12] Nutt, D.; King, L. A.; Saulsbury, W.; Blakemore, C. (2007). "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse". The Lancet 369 (9566): 1047–1053. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4. PMID 17382831. [13] Nutt, D. (2010). "Nutt damage – Author's reply". The Lancet 375 (9716): 724–724. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60302-9.

Roughly, the story as I recall it was that the head of the government's own advisory body on the health effects of drugs published a report through established scientific channels which claimed a significant mis-match between the harm caused by many popular drugs and the legislation around them. These were respected scientsists originally picked for their qualifications & integrity. Their opinion was unpopular with the existing power-structures and so their leader felt he had to resign, and several of his peers followed voluntarily.

Up to this point, most governments have exhibited intent to ignore the suggestions and testable claims of researchers in this area, and to ignore the will of the people they represent. I doubt an article in the WP will do anything to change that, no matter how much I wish it would.

The Keith Cirkel articles, mentioned earlier, are great. I also found this one, today: http://beletsky.net/2015/04/npm-for-everything.html

It's less detailed, but also shorter and easier to digest.

All of those problems are design issues (in the sense of overall application/site design). They can "easily" be solved by not designing the site to work that way. Sites only work that way because site developers (the whole team) choose to do it and then implement a solution to achieve it.

The specs for the various languages and the guidelines on their "best use" already define NOT doing any of those things either by dint of it not being built-in behavior or by already actively recommending against it. There's no need to follow a 2nd, proprietary specification to do what is already the standard.

I had to read that twice. Nicely done!

I'd have read that but I didn't get more than two lines in before an overlay appeared in front of the content. So I gave up.

> I am just trying to ask if it is fair to punish people for bad attitude of ad networks.

Publishers should ask themselves whether they are in the business of providing quality content to consumers, or in the business of sharing revenue with advertisers. Deciding which side of this line they fall on will help them make the right choices.

The points apply equally to those things you call "applications" as they do to those things you call "sites". They're essentially the same thing. They're all functionality delivered over web technologies and for that reason, the OP's points still hold. In the case of a "web site" the functionality is "displaying content".

An "application" can be built using progressive enhancement. The OP even describes ways to approach this. There were applications before there were AJAX or Angular. Their experiences leave a little to be desired, sure, but they were certainly usable. A basis in simpler, server-centric interaction with enhanced, client-side experience jazz is still more in-keeping with "how the web was made", and with how it is consumed.

> This whole progressive enhancement thing is mired in decade old dogma. While progressive enhancement can work sometimes, it is NOT the only tool. We shouldn't wholesale prescribe solutions without knowing someone's problem.

The "first load" problem is a recent addition to the canon of reasons why progressive enhancement is a solid approach. I think that trashes your argument that this is "decade old dogma".

And to further counter your point, the notion that "decade old dogma" is "bad" is refuted by success of POSIX/UNIX. And wheels. Some "old" ideas are still state of the art.

You could probably say similar for Hans Zimmer's "office"[0].

[0] http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2010/01/29/the-secret-lair-of-...

Only part of that results in lower barriers to trade. Mostly that reads like "follow these rules, update your processes and factories to these other specifications" - significant barriers themselves, just upstream from the actual trade.

More significant is that there is little transparency and a, seemingly, active avoidance of public discourse about the rule-setting. The rule-setting is where the power lies, and that's what most of the objection is about.

I've not read the spec, and I've never written full library-type code, so feel free to vote this down.

Personally, I'd say the described behaviour made sense. If I bound a function, I'd want its `this` to remain bound, regardless of how I called it. That'w what one uses `.bind()` for. It seems counter-intuitive, to me, that one might want to explicitly `.bind()` something and then use it as if it had never been bound. In that case I'd `.call()` the original function with the new content object, rather than `.call()` the bound one.

WebAssembly is only going to make the situation worse.

Can you prove the quote was not spin to make Google appear to have the moral high-ground here?