Please read what's on the site: "Nothing is recorded or sent across the network. Peace of mind, without giving up on privacy."
I appreaciate your privacy concerns, but not every device is the same. We are in an early stage of such cloud-based "smart devices", so we have to be careful as there are great conceptual differences between different products.
I think you could look at short term consulting services like AirPair (recent YC company) or HackHands- they offer on demand video/audio calls with specialists that can help with specific technological problems. OP's service is more about absolute honesty than specific knowledge.
For me personally, the challenge UI frameworks like Bootstrap solve is the pure UI. That is, which borders, shadows and spacings to use and such stuff. A thin layer on top of the actual APIs like Mozilla Brick does not seem too useful to me - why bother adding a third party component if it merely wraps the functionality of HTML/CSS? (Although I must admit I haven't used Brick yet.)
I think the limitation is more technical than you make it seem. Why is there no network-level decentralization for social networks? Because P2P connections have a habit of being unstable, unreliable and hard to initiate. What if your desired peer is offline at the moment? Would be very convenient to store the information somewhere. A server in the middle just works. The primary reason not to use a server is because there is an inherent disadvantage/distrust in a central authority (à la Bitcoin). Apparently for social networks this is not an issue for 99.9% of people.
Been using this for a while now. One very annoying thing is the weird caching behaviour of the settings: If I switch into emulation mode on tab #1 and then open the dev tools in tab #2, the second tab will also emulate the same screen resolution. However, when I reset the emulation in tab #2, tab #1 will not be changed. Is there any sense in this behaviour?
"Harri summoned an 11 member crack team around him, with the mission of bringing the increasing power of the Internet of Everything to reach everybody's reach. In September 2013 they started making the bttn a reality. Deliveries will start in October 2014."
11 people set out to build a standalone button that costs 100$... Am I missing something? Is this satire? Great idea, would love to buy one but both price and team strength seem to be off by factor of 10.
The article mentioned the problem with this approach: Your browser loads the HTML, CSS, JS simultaneously with the images on the start of the page load - so when you find out what size you need at runtime (via JS), and then put in the right img-src, it will be slower than loading a higher-res version right from the start.
Another option would be to "guess" the right size to serve based on the User Agent String (maybe you meant this and I misunderstood?). This could work, although the server may very well guess wrong.
A lot of people use notation #1 to do namespacing by using objects, eg
var MyProject = {};
MyProject.func = function() {}
If you ever want to assign a function to an object, you might as well do it with global-scope functions. Most debuggers/profilers I am aware of can handle this notation well. If they don't, there is still the possibility of doing
Flynn could really make a dent in the PaaS space, although they seem to have a problem communicating their value proposition. I understand it's something like an open-source version of Heroku? If they take all the hassle out of deployments (everything that happens between git push and bare metal), I see a lot of Heroku users that are sick and tired of paying outrageous 35$ a month could flock over to them.
"If you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me."
I don't think any of those actions except the last one could be considered a legitimate reason to "shoot, taser or pepper-spray" somebody. Isn't that exactly what this whole controversy is about?
Under four seconds, please note that this violates Google's ToS and you will likely be blocked if you do this on any significant scale.
var bandname = "All Time Low";
var fetchUrl = require("fetch").fetchUrl;
var url = "https://www.google.de/search?q=";
bandname = bandname.replace(" ", "+");
fetchUrl(url+bandname, {
headers: {
'User-Agent' : 'Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/37.0.2049.0 Safari/537.36'
}
}, function(error, meta, body){
var ret = [];
var alts = body.toString().split('alt\\x3d\\x22');
alts.forEach(function (alt) { var cur = alt.split("\\x22")[0]; if (cur.indexOf("(")==-1) ret.push(cur) });
console.log(ret);
});
Typography is one element of UI design - I agree with you that the material they provide / you linked to is probably high quality, but there must be a faster and more actionable way to learn to design than to read 3 books on every one of these elements! Imagine someone trying to learn to program: You would (probably) not recommend 3 books on Syntax, Compiler Design and Data Structures to even get started...
If there is demand for an oversupply of everything (which there apparently is, otherwise the oversupplying companies would go bankrupt), it no longer fits the definition of oversupply.
pg weighed in a while ago on this in his essay "Why To Not Not Start A Startup" (March 2007, http://paulgraham.com/notnot.html). See point 8:
"A lot of people look at the ever-increasing number of startups and think "this can't continue." Implicit in their thinking is a fallacy: that there is some limit on the number of startups there could be. But this is false. No one claims there's any limit on the number of people who can work for salary at 1000-person companies. Why should there be any limit on the number who can work for equity at 5-person companies? [3]
Nearly everyone who works is satisfying some kind of need. Breaking up companies into smaller units doesn't make those needs go away."
Interesting how the post completely ignores the quality of the language. Most people I know don't use C# for the same reason they don't use Java: Because it's often feels bloated, over-engineered and too verbose for building stuff fast. It has nothing to do with Microsoft, Azure or scaling, they just prefer whatever dynamic language they're comfortable with.
Because the capital that you invest has been taxed before, when it was earned. Kind of harsh to tax 40% on your income, and when you save it, tax again the same amount on your returns.
Indeed, most of the yc-funded startups still focus on building practical stuff. But isn't the airbnb example showing that it works to "not think about how to be a huge company one day"? I mean, if the size of their idea (changing the way most people travel) was not clear to them at the time, and yet they've succeeded (or are on their way to do so), it obviously worked out.
I dislike the new, hyper-ambitious side of YC (also in the other new RFSs: AI, HealthCare...). Have any of the truly revolutionary inventions (like steam engine, automobile, microcomputer, internet) started out as something developed to have such an incredibly big scale, or did they merely turn out to have big implications? It's the latter, and I think it's not just a correlation, but a causation: To make something truly disruptive, it needs to be new, and it is very unlikely to come up with something that is new while at the same time aiming to solve a problem that everybody can agree on (like let's build one million jobs, let's build AI, let's fix healthcare etc). That's usually the reason government projects fail, and the reason startups succeed, and having YC now focusing on stuff with the "could-this-be-a-big-company"-shaded glasses is a 180° turn from their original heritage.
I'm not judging his intentions here, just very curious how he managed to pull this remarkable hack off. No problem with him asking for 10$, I'd just love to take a look at the source. (I would certainly buy a version for 20$ w/ source included, and it probably wouldn't be a DRM problem either, since hackers usually aren't the type of people that believe in working DRM.)
Just amazing how close to an official product this gets quality wise. I really regret updating to 7.1, too bad this guy plans on releasing it commercial instead of open-source.
I hate the one-letter caption. Upvoted accidentally, I'm sure I'm not the only one. Maybe there should be a minimum amount of characters for the title.