It broke my back button :(
360 karma · joined December 25, 2011
For coding I use comments and a git alias (git todo) that returns the comments.
todo = !git grep --color=always --no-index --exclude-standard --heading --break --ignore-case -e ' FIX: *' -e ' TODO: *' | sed -e 's/^[[:space:]]*//'
I'm not suggesting it is a cry for help (though it certainly could be), but it certainly is an attempt to connect with others.
I must admit I haven't read the full story. I found it too lengthy.
A common misconception, called "the law of small numbers".
Probability theory tells us this is only true over a large amount of requests, i.e. in the long term (the law of large numebrs). In the short term, results can vary wildly and thus form these kind of queues.
If you read the OP, his mean concern is the tiny subtle changes in the algorithm that drive him mad. He calls optimising for them SEO. It is considered shady and evil by some, myself included. (Ultimately it's about the content, not about who best reverse-engineered Google's algorithm.)
What he consistently doesn't tell us is why it's necessary and how exactly we're supposed to implement HATEOAS—wouldn't HEAS be a much better acronym?—in our APIs.
I'm guessing the reason why is so API wrappers would be trivial to write. A single library could simply consume a "standards-compliant" API. What that means I do not know.
That's where the how comes in. It seems from the XML example that these links have to in the body of the response. That would mean every single response format has to be dealt with separately. That's not very practical. I also have no idea how something like it would look in JSON for example, let alone how it should be parsed in a meaningful way.
The only thing I miss is the ability to view more if I find something interesting. Perhaps this restriction is exactly why its so effective, though.
The way it's used in this demo, though, I found it's very distracting from the actual content. All my attention went to the little popover, which resulted in not reading any text on the page itself. I think this is partially because the popovers didn't point at anything directly.
5.8kb is impressive, though.
Hell, even Hacker News isn't as fast as I'd like it to be on my connection.
- I find the icons in the bar on the top to be rather *ambiguous. I don't immediately know what purpose they serve, save for the + icon. Some text (just text?) would be useful here.
- The text underneath the link titles is very hard to read. I have to squint. The colour is too close to the white background it's on.
- I have no idea what the tomato and the T circle are supposed to indicate.
- Nested comments aren't easily scrolled over, because the indentation is quite small.
I'm not a designer at all, these are just some things that I notice as a user. Aesthetically I find the site to be quite pretty.
Edit: I like the concept a lot!
Obviously you don't need to go trough all that trouble if you simply want to display the date you published a post on your blog.
Some are much clearer though, especially switch, sync and publish.
A better argument against the tl;dr would be that the piece you're writing it for becomes redundant, provided it's an accurate tl;dr. The term tl;dr wouldn't be needed then, because the tl;dr itself becomes your piece.
If it isn't an accurate tl;dr, there's no reason for providing it in the first place, except maybe for giving a rough idea of what your piece is about. OP rightly points out, though, that conventions already exist for just that. A descriptive title or an introduction clearly distinguishable from the rest of your piece, for example.
If the same people are complaining about paper and other objects having the "wrong" colours at night, you might be onto something. I think that's highly unlikely though and I see little reason to seek a genetic explanation.
F.lux emulates an undergoing sun. That doesn't happen in 20 seconds. Set the transition time to Slow.
Also select the right type of lighting. If none of the types match your lighting, juggle a bit with the settings until your screen looks the same way a piece of paper would look in the same lighting.
If you do that, you won't notice it's running at all. The only reason I turn it off is when I'm watching a movie. The colours in a movie usually already take darkness in account.