idonthaveaname

3 ms·

1.
by idonthaveaname 11y ago
> 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] Event
2.
by idonthaveaname 11y ago
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.
3.
by idonthaveaname 11y ago
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 te
4.
by idonthaveaname 11y ago
I had to read that twice. Nicely done!
5.
by idonthaveaname 11y ago
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.
6.
by idonthaveaname 11y ago
> 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
7.
by idonthaveaname 11y ago
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 fo
8.
by idonthaveaname 11y ago
> 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. T
9.
by idonthaveaname 11y ago
You could probably say similar for Hans Zimmer's "office"[0]. [0] http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2010/01/29/the-secret-lair-of-...
10.
by idonthaveaname 11y ago
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
11.
by idonthaveaname 11y ago
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, r
12.
by idonthaveaname 11y ago
WebAssembly is only going to make the situation worse.
13.
by idonthaveaname 12y ago
Can you prove the quote was not spin to make Google appear to have the moral high-ground here?