mQu

Because it looks good on r/unixporn ;-)

But more to the point - it fits with many keyboard only work flows and/or tiling WMs (i3, awesome, etc). At least that's what it's good in it for me. One less context switch.

Hey, I'm an engineer. All I need is an investor. Anyone? ;-)

I wouldn't say that Internet always watching can have the same effect because it's just mob of peers (humans) and ultimately can be ignored or fooled. God by definition can't. That why the concept can be disciplinary and ubiquitous. God watches you over the Internet too.

However the concept of god (or God) in technology has been touched by sci-fi many times. Gibson's Sprawl trilogy, Serial Experiments Lain, GitS, Stanisław Lem's books and many more.

If as the article stipulates humans need an external factor to be kept in line with social norms than this could be the evolution of religion.

Yes and no. In my tests with live traffic (fingerprint,ip) tuple was as good as standard tracking cookie. Sometimes even better because I could match "incognito" modes as well. This was however only for desktop browsers. Mobile has much higher conformity and yielded mostly false positives.

YMMV of course but for my purposes it was not worth it.

Ofc a blog describing your experience would be just that knowledge promoting that i have in mind so kudos for that (and i'll be keeping an eye for it because it is a hard problem to get right).

But it's missing the point - just like other comments said - if you need this you're doing it wrong.

I sure was guilty of big sites just as much as the next guy. It just saddens me that insted of promoting what we've learned it the past years and applying to current projects we're doomed to repeat bad UX from before.

Not realy. A user with a slow connection will know that and wait (because the problem will be global). Adding a preloader is just bloat that will make the site load even longer (and just piss off the user as he'll know that some of his scare bandwith was lost on the shiny spinning wheel).

Why is this any different than Flash preloaders just a moment ago? And even worse - it doesn't show any progress so there isn't any user feedback. Every (bad) pattern seems to repeat itself. Just using current-cool-tech.

I would much more appreciate that dev time would be put into a framework that allows graceful enchancement by deferring loading more heavy components and to allow user to interact with the site ASAP.

Having a skeleton project for gulp (or any other system) that shows how to properly split big, non essential, components and lazy load them would go much further to ease developing big applications and smoothen UX.

EDIT: typos.

But there it is with Hearbleed in the same cnet article so it must be serious. So serious. Wow.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that this isn't even old news. It's by design - something inherent to OAuth authentication scheme.

Also both CNet and the original are so light on details it's scary. I get the feeling though that we've entered an era for "vulnerability sites" - instead of CVEs we're now getting marketing.

Do I understand correctly that browsers obtain source code through bridge (local HTTP server?) from Avatar network or is it downloaded traditionally?

EDIT (from here to end): to clarify - my question is to assess security of the 'runtime' - if it's downloaded from the server what is there to stop malicious party from compromising the server and sending modified verification code?

Would it be downloaded through the bridge then (and only then) verification with block chain could be done on received updates (providing first d/l wasn't compromised). User browser would then access files exposed by the bridge.

At least this is how I imagine it but the OP overview is light on details.