sklivvz1971

A class called "download-book" wouldn't be semantic either.

A semantic choice of classes should represent the roles that things have in the UI hierarchy: if a "book download" button is the main action of the page, it should have a class of, say "main-action", possibly with an extra "download" class to show UI specific to download actions.

If a "book download" button is just an action, for example a button that is repeated multiple times in a table, then it needs a different class, like "action", still possibly with "download".

This is exactly like properly written HTML is semantic, elements represent hierarchical roles ("nav", "footer"), not their look, nor their content.

Are you sure your monetization strategy is the right one? Do people have the right incentives to pay? Not allowing people to stay in the free tier is a pretty bad motivator.

I really don't like this service at all. It destroys value, like the ability to be anonymous, and enables abuse by companies - the 90% use case is by companies who use it for sending marketing junk as we all know perfectly.

The only example I can think of is when using temp-mail for serious stuff.

E.g. you register an actual account with temp-mail, this makes anybody able to reset the password.

I totally agree though that this service is user-hostile.

Funnily, the new "most secure" pound will be introduced one day before a pretty big event, Mrs. May's Article 50 invocation, which widely predicted to devalue the pound significantly.

You might buy new pounds as "secure" coins, but you'll probably some percentage of their value the next day...

> How do they want to prevent someone from creating his own end-to-end encryption app?

They can't. The US tried it in the 90's when SSL sites could not use strong encryption outside the US and you'd need a license to "export" PGP... That went well! :-/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

Yes, this: she might as well just be ignorant (not that it is any justification), but her supposedly competent advisors are actually frauds, fakes and spooks, that's what truly scary to me.

Coming from the same government that wants all ISPs to keep a log of all the sites you visit. These people are beasts and as dangerous, if not more, as the perils they are supposed to save us from.

If people knew the damage these idiots do, they would be in the streets.

Oh wait, they already are in the streets...

Another good use case for spam blockers. They work wonderfully for this.

20 years web dev here, pretty much agree with everything the author wrote. Exactly my experience and conclusions.

My favorite bit so far from the LBRY FAQ: "we’re basically, fundamentally the same as a toaster"

Today, in the "companies that treat people like things" section we talk about IBM -- a company that routinely fires thousands of people. Today, the enlightened company is planning to relocate or dismiss the rest of their workforce, in the hope to change the company from the inventor and champion of all-that-is-waterfall to "agile".

All with a straight face.

In my experience employment is not lower risk at all, in terms of continuity of employment. Companies will fire you even in countries where your rights are strongly protected, the only difference being you get paid for the nuisance. This is not really a differentiator: let's say that incentivised employees get a month of salary for each year of service, then you can factor that in your daily rate as a contractor.

The big advantage is when you have strong rights and we're talking about long term illness. For example in Italy you can't be fired if you are truly sick for months: your employment will be retained, however you might not get paid, or not get paid fully.

Other advantages might be related to discrimination: for a young white male it might be easier to get a developer job, or for a seasoned white male might be easier to get a lead/manager role. It's the same with employment, but as a contractor, passing job interviews becomes a significant part of your job, as well as cultivating relationships.

Failing project: the tests were the impediment (too broken and costly to refactor, every change would cost more in unit test fixing than actual implementation).

I've also seen negative impact developers. If they did not code, we'd be closer to the finish line than if they did not.

Works great if you pair them with a more senior developer who has the chutzpah to make an impact by deleting egregiously bad code. E.g. one of the best I know made a failing project succeed by literally deleting all unit tests (which in that case were not providing value at all).

I absolutely loved this article. Don't get hung up on the "10x", read it as "good". All the characteristics Salvatore describes are the characteristics of every good developer I know, and that every developer should strive for. They make you a better artisan, but also increase your productivity. Who cares if it's 10x, 100x or 2.5x? The important bit is growing to your personal full potential.

One thing that it's missing from the post is a bit of focus on how good developers (and indeed good leaders) concentrate on maximizing their impact. Not only you want to be fast and reasonably accurate, but also make what you do matter. Sometimes shaving down compilation time by a couple of minutes will save each developer in the team two minutes multiple times a day for years, for example. Not all productivity wins are obvious.

It's not useless at all. Banning CNN and other relatively hostile or left leaning news corps is not really meant to protect Trump from them. After all, their readership is likely in large part against Trump already.

No, the move is a warning to the news organizations who stay. It's a message that they will be kicked out if they don't push stuff that the administration likes.

Nah, don't overthink this.

> Maybe sites like Stack Overflow have 0 variable cost but this is more of an exception.

Interesting, how so? I find it difficult to imagine any media site that, once they produced a piece of content, has to pay any other substantial cost as they get more views.

In other words: doubling up page views for the Guardian does not mean doubling up the costs of producing the articles. That's what I mean by "substantially zero variable cost".

The elephant in the room here is the assumption that newspapers or other media that rely only on ads to survive should automatically have a viable business model just because they had a viable model with printed media.

Clearly, this is not the case. One can't adblock printed media, but can certainly adblock websites.

The solution? Find a better business model. For example, stack overflow uses non-intrusive, pertinent ads to entice people to white list the site, and separate revenue streams like a job board to keep the site running.

I understand that this might sound simplistic. I am perfectly aware of how hard this problem is to fix -- however the world moves in the direction dictated by the big economic trends. Websites have almost zero variable cost -- most cost is fixed and does not scale as pageviews increase -- so economics tells us that competition will drive the value of a pageview to zero.

A couple of additional points: Google and RedHat are the technical steerign group of the .net foundation (https://dotnetfoundation.org/about/tsg); Microsoft is a platinum sponsor of the Linux foundation, and by the way, google is "just" a gold member (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/members/corporate)

I am a core dev at Stack Overflow. We do not work with .net core yet in production.

That said, we do maintain a number of .net libraries, such as Dapper or miniprofiler and we ported them to .net core (or we are in the process of doing that).

We are also contributing significantly, together with other community leaders, to the design and development of the .net core API.

This said, we have been having some of the pain that is mentioned in other threads. The framework is still incomplete and evolving, although a lot of what's coming out is excellent and very fast/modern.

This article relies on the assumption that OO has been designed to work with single core or "few" core processor.

It's a false assumption. OO has been designed to model the world in the hope that this would make expressing business logic easier.

It's not hard to imagine what would happen with these many cores, because we already have specialized systems with many cores: GPUs and CUDA.

And as every single time people talk about parallelism as a holy grail of performance, the truth is obvious to whomever actually uses this hardware: not many problems are highly parallelizable and parallelism is always harder than single threaded code -- it's harder to think about, and this has nothing to do with the programming paradigm.

> Websites can block me from viewing their site if I have an ad blocker installed.

They can try, but it's fundamentally impossible.

Surely you are not suggesting that US laws have any bearing outside of it, correct?

"Legally"? Seriously misleading title, a foreign nation state hacking people has not been made legal outside the US at all. It might be legal in the US, but surely it's still computer crime where it's committed.

No, sorry, the new MacBook pro sucks for hackers. It's great for prosumers who like gadgets and benefit from USB-C. Hackers do not benefit from a closed box with non-expandable performance.

I get it that prosumers like to think of themselves as "hackers", but ...that's just not how it works. Come on.

All chargers are Chinese, not only the ones which suck. Let's leave cheap shots at other countries out of here, thanks.

Whole article in a sentence:

"These possibilities might seem wholly untestable, because part of the conceit is that sufficiently advanced life will not just be unrecognizable as such, but will blend completely into the fabric of what we’ve thought of as nature. But viewed through the warped bottom of a beer glass, we can pick out a few cosmic phenomena that—at crazy as it sounds—might fit the requirements."

Meh :-)

Please leave conspiracy theories out of the internet. Seriously, not cool.