ender7

Chrome was trying to do this: https://developer.chrome.com/native-client

However, cries of foul "vendor lockin" erupted. So I dunno what to tell you, man.

Keep in mind that every autocar will have an extremely accurate recording of the accident that can be analyzed and played back during a hearing. Determining fault will be trivial in almost all cases.

From your own link:

"Google and Delphi said their cars were not at fault in any accidents, which the companies said were minor."

I don't think framing the issue as one of individual morals is very constructive. Here's how I tend to think about the future of web advertising:

1. The tracking data that the online advertising industry gathers is bad for users and will ultimately be bad for advertisers. It should go away. Doing so will require a combination of technical and political restrictions on the way that advertisers do business. Solely one or the other will not be sufficient.

2. Advertising is and will remain the lifeblood of the Internet. The past is littered with the calcified husks of arguments claiming that subscription plans or microtransactions are capable replacements for advertising revenue. If a majority of users install ad blockers, society as a whole will suffer as content creators are squeezed out of the market. Whether or not this is a moral behavior is not the point -- users with ad blockers are game-theoretic parasites that feed off this weakness in the system. Societies have traditionally addressed such weaknesses by classifying such behavior as undesirable, shameful, or immoral. The movement to classify ad blockers in this category has already begun: in the future, either ad blockers will attain a majority or plurality install base among users or this movement towards demonizing ad-blocking users will intensify.

I don't want to be flippant here, but anyone who thinks you can build a high-quality UI with a solely declarative system hasn't built very many UIs.

Please provide sources for your claims, I would be interested in reading them.

The HN community was (and apparently still is) incredibly hostile to the idea that global warming is a grave threat to humanity. I would think that such a technology-oriented group would be swayed by the now-massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion, but the opposite seems to have happened. Comments attempt to refute even the existence of global warming with irrelevant data of their own or strange nitpicks at the perimeter of an article that seem bent on derailing discussion of the main point (i.e. DH4 at best [1]). If solid evidence is presented, it's usually dismissed with arguments like "this popular news article doesn't even say how exactly they computed <extremely complicated result>, therefor it must be bunk. There could be an error in there somewhere, so I shall assume there is one."

Where does this animus spring from?

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Yes and no.

Netflix's basic original goal is the same: they want it to be the entertainment option that you instinctively reach for when you have free time (the "moments of truth").

In the past, they achieved this via their vast catalog and their customers' viewing queues. Most customers have a queue full of things to watch, so when they sit down they can just pop the next thing off the queue.

In the future, it looks like they hope to achieve the same default status by simply replacing the queue with fantastic original and curated content and content recommendation systems. No, they won't have everything, but they'll still have more than your limited free time can handle, and their stuff will be of higher quality than anything you can get elsewhere.

I'm not sold on whether they can pull off the switcheroo, but it's also clear to everyone that their existing business model can't survive the next 10 years as content incumbents move their content off Netflix and onto their own proprietary platforms. In that world, no one can be Netflix (not even Netflix). However, Netflix has a good chance of being better than any of the other proprietary platforms. Given customers' limited money and patience with juggling accounts and different apps, Netflix stands a good chance to come out on top in that situation. That said, in that world I can't imagine them being more than 5x more profitable than the next most successful competitor in a landscape made up of tens of competitors.

The addition of "async/await" to ES7 will make things like async DOM APIs practical to use. Until then, you'll be in callback hell forever.

Note that relative positioning does not just create a stacking context, it also allows you to use the `left` and `top` properties to offset the element from its static position.

The new Map and WeakMap classes use Object.is() to determine if two keys are the same (otherwise it would be impossible to use NaN as a key to a map).

Whether this algorithm should have been exposed to users is debatable, but it exists for a good reason.

Query: is something still class warfare if it is true?

35mph is the normal minimum in the US, outside of some neighborhoods where it gets as low as 20-25mph.

The 25mph speed is a hack around US auto regulations, which are far less strict if the vehicle's max speed is 25mph or less.

This is a pretty long article. The concepts you need to know aren't so long:

There are three ways to invoke a function. The meaning of `this` depends on which method was used:

- If a function is invoked in the form `foo.func()`, then the value of `this` is `foo`.

- If a function is invoked in the form `func()` (sometimes called "bare"), then the value of `this` is the "root object". In browsers the root object is `window`, in Node this it's the `global` object [0]. It's easier to make a bare invocation than you think:

    var bareFunc = foo.func;
    bareFunc();

- If a function is invoked via the `call()` or `apply()` function, then the value of `this` is whatever the invocation specifies. For example, in `func.call(foo)` the value of `this` will be `foo`.

If you ever pass a function to something else as a callback, you have no guarantee what the value of `this` will be when it is called. For example, if you register a callback for a click event, the value of `this` is whatever the caller wants it to be (in this case, it'll be the DOM element that's emitting the event):

    function MyFoo(elem) {
      elem.addEventListener('click', this.onClick);
    }

    MyFoo.prototype.onClick = function(e) {
      // `this` is whatever the caller wanted it to be
    }

You can force `this` to be a specific value by using the `bind()` function:

    function MyFoo(elem) {
      elem.addEventListener('click', this.onClick.bind(this));
    }

    MyFoo.prototype.onClick = function(e) {
      // `this` has been bound to what you think it should be.
    }

[0] However, if you're in strict mode, then in either case `this` will be `undefined`.

There are lots of reasons to want some form of scripting language embedded inside a C++ project. This is the primary use case for Lua, especially in game development. For example

- In a game, write quest logic in the scriptable language so that game devs can tinker with quest design without recompiling the game binary.

- "plugins" (usually UI plugins of some kind). Games like Elder Scrolls Online and World of Warcraft allow for 3rd parties to write UI extensions in Lua.

- Any other logic that you want to run and frequently modify without modifying the binary.

There are other great uses-cases that I can't think of right now, hopefully others can help.

What? The correct behavior here is to realize that the target no longer supports iMessage and return to non-iMessage behavior. This should involve swapping the UI from blue back to green so the user is aware.

Well...sure. The correct answer is "use WebGL, it's designed for this." Looks like the guy learned a lot about 3D engines though. His next goal (to make a CSS output for Three.js) is similarly silly, but the history of computing is full of ridiculous side projects.

...one of the major features of this announcement is support for third-party e-mail providers.

Decelerating from ~27,600 km/hr would be the main challenge :)

Note that some of these ideas count as collusion and are illegal. See: the Justice Department's successful lawsuit against publishers over their deals with Apple.

Unfortunately, the set of solutions {!collusion, practical} is very small. It might be empty.

This comment is still ignoring the main point. It shouldn't matter what Hachette's balance sheet currently is. The point is that Amazon appears to have complete control over it. Given that situation, it will inevitably reach zero.

Another thing to keep in mind is that while cross-cutting constraints are a bad idea in gross quantities, they do appear in many well-designed UIs and as such are not something that you can disallow completely. If you have a system that doesn't support them (such as Android), you force developers to kludge their own constraint solving on top of the existing system. The occasional need for such things isn't going to go away if you structure your framework correctly, it's just a question of how much you're going to make your developer hate you when they need to implement one.

Approximately half of Flash's design decisions and APIs were extremely well-designed and well-engineered. There are still many things that Flash does better than pure HTML and their view framework API was actually quite lovely.

That said...the other 50% was frequently so bad that it more than cancelled out the benefit on the other side. Which is why no one uses Flash anymore [1].

[1] Everyone still uses Flash.

Friendly reminder: rumors that Google is going to buy Twitch are still just that -- rumors. Nothing has been announced, and there are new rumors that Amazon is now thinking about a purchase [1].

[1] http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/amazon-not-google-repo...

While manufacturing the cable is expensive, actually laying it (in that particular part of the ocean) is not that challenging. They essentially just drive a ship along that path while slowly spooling out the cable from the rear. They have the advantage that that stretch of ocean doesn't contain much of anything to plan around.

While cloning makes sense to an individual actor, it has a harmful effect on the market overall. If cloning is rampant, then innovation is discouraged. Why spend the time and resources to find things out for yourself when you can just wait for some other schmuck to figure it out and then copy them? Of course as this process continues, there are fewer and fewer schmucks who will feel the need to create thoughtful, carefully-considered products.

Copying can be discouraged through legal means, but the results are usually unsatisfactory (witness our ongoing strife over technology patents). A culture where copying is viewed as shameful has the advantage that most situations never need to devolve into actual legal action. Companies will voluntarily avoid copying one another (in an obvious or crass manner) to avoid damaging their brand.

Marvel sold the X-Men rights to Fox, who retains them as long as they continue to make X-Men movies (the same is true for Sony with Spiderman). It's unlikely that Fox will relinquish those rights within the next 10 years.

In practice, however, using BitCoin requires trusting something that is the equivalent of a gateway (an exchange) with your BitCoins if you want to be able to freely trade them.

The fact that this weakness does not appear in the BitCoin protocol, but is rather implied by the human desire for convenience and marketplaces, doesn't make it less of a flaw. One can sneer at everyone who lost money with MtGox for "choosing poorly", so to speak, but on the other hand exchanges are the driving force behind BitCoin's success.

Gradients and juicy-fruit graphics are like candy -- they provide an instant and strong positive feeling, but they don't age well. If you had to eat nothing but candy, you'd hate the sugar-coated morass your mouth had become. In general, a flat icon tends to age better and reduce "eye exhaustion" (not a physiological thing, but a psychological one). Note that this applies mostly just to icons; the entire UI is not so tightly bound by these rules.

However, design is also trend-oriented, and flat is a rising trend.

First, regulations regarding universal access have little in common with net neutrality regulations except that both are simply examples of regulation. A person might support one but not the other without crossing some logical event horizon.

Secondly, it's not clear that the implied solution in your comment ("more competition") would lead to firmer protections for net neutrality. Any changes to open the market to competition would take many years to come to fruition while current ISPs would jump at the chance to discriminate traffic immediately. By the time competition arrived, it is likely that the idea of traffic discrimination (and extortion) would have become so standard and endemic that it would no longer be a point of competition for these new competitors (especially true given how hard it is to explain net neutrality to laypersons).

It's for these reasons that I support both strengthening net neutrality regulation and loosening universal access restrictions (although, to be honest, I would rather have a government ISP with a universal access responsibility, similar to USPS).