faboo

That's only a hard requirement if you're creating a web component. Unknown elements are treated as inline elements by default, so if you're just using it for styling and using global attributes (even JS ones like onclick), you can use whatever tags you want. You only run into trouble when you start doing more advanced stuff with your non-standard elements.

What in the world is the non-"Dumpster" word for a dumpster?

I'm a vegetarian on principle, and have no problem eating GMO anything.

OTOH, I've been vegetarian for 15 years and most meat flavors and textures have worn on me.

Amusingly, I'm in the reverse situation: loving working in Haskell and reeally want to try Rust but I just don't have the time.

For what it's worth, Haskell can be compiled to code that's quite fast. Somewhat unfortunately, the difference between GHC's vanilla output and its speed-optimized output can be quite vast, which I think gives the impression that the language or a given program is necessarily slow.

Apple's T&Cs are so long because they usually show you like 6 different documents, most of which aren't even in regard to iTunes. (Google does this too.)

It depends on how you've packaged your application. Technically, yes, the user needs NW.js to run your application, but you can ship with NW.js if you like (it's just one fat executable). When NW.js is run, it looks for a NW.js app to run in the working directory, so all the user needs to do is run the NW.js binary you provided and it will launch your app.

That's going to break so quickly here in Boston.

Depends on what you mean by "break". In Boston, you might just get, epic, hour-long pong battles. Seriously, the pedestrian signal situation in Boston is so haphazard you could hardly make it worse by introducing experiments like this.

I don't know, I always found the perl and zsh man pages to be rather pleasant. They were sprawling, sure, but having long ago given up on brevity, they have no fear of meticulously describing how a feature or flag works. And they're just man pages, so you don't need to read the manual-for-the-manual first like I always find myself doing when I'm forced to use info.

Between Bob's army and insipid comments rising to the top, the comments sections of a lot of interesting, community oriented channels became useless (more so, even, than before). If nobody is actually looking at the comments section, then it doesn't really make technical sense to keep it as it is - it's just busy work for their engineers. So it makes sense then for them to either attempt further fixes, or, in true Google fashion, simply remove the feature altogether.

I don't know about the rest of G+, but since the integration, I've been unable to comment on YouTube videos with my G+ account, something that worked fine before. I'd certainly call that "not usable".

Google Translate actually doesn't do a terrible job on the article text (it's not perfect, but it's understandable). It does kind of mess-up the English in the email though.

> Also there are worse things in the world than having to have that discussion with your kid.

The rest of your post is totally valid, but I think the above is a big take-away for those of us who don't abuse our kids. Parenting is in large part discussion, and some of the more important discussions are about uncomfortable things.

To be fair, if camus hasn't heard of Edge it isn't his fault - it's Adobe's. Which, in a way, helps to emphasize his point.

I've wondered for a while if the price for television advertising was/is inflated due to the fact that there's no way to track its impact. Web advertisements usually pay per click these days, which at least measures some kind of engagement, and yet advertisers apparently pay significantly less for it in aggregate than they do television advertising, which seems backward to me.

Having gone to RIT in New York, which contains the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, that seems a dubious claim. I lived with and went to school with a lot of deaf people, many completely, utterly deaf (no hear aids of any kind), and even took classes taught by people who were completely deaf. While reading and writing English was difficult for some (due to learning it after American Sign Language and a frequent de-emphasis of English at many primary and secondary schools that admit deaf students), being unable to hear at all was not an insurmountable obstacle to reading and writing proficiency.

Without threading support though, you aren't really encouraging discussion; just a bunch of one-off comments on the original material. And even then, you end up with ad-hoc threading like you see on MetaFilter or 4Chan, where new comments address old ones by the user handle or comment id.

Man, I hate incremental and hlsearch :)

I'd agree with you on hidden but... the Vim defaults are (generally) the most vi-like settings, which makes some amount of sense. At the very least it keeps people from squabbling about what should be the default.

OTOH, the default vimrc has a bunch of stuff turned on and tweaked depending on your platform. So that could be a good venue for turning on some of these new, Vim-only features. That may sound like splitting hairs, but I think there's at least a bit of difference between "on by default" and "set to on in the config mkvimrc creates".

Historically, in the United States anyway, unions were less about making it harder to fire people (per se), and more about forcing employers to think about things like safety, reasonable work hours (supposedly, one of the first major labor wins was the bakers' 10 hour day), reasonable wagers, and harassment.

An employment market with too few workers (where it's easier to find a job) is good, but isn't enough if all the jobs require 14 hour days, working with deafening machinery with little to no safety equipment or training, for paltry wages.

Now, if we're honest, modern unions work for all of those things too, even if major unions are sometimes seen in less positive light sometimes.

I don't think you'd easily win the argument, unless the parties involved generally didn't sign non-disparagement agreements.

I was once laid off from a company that gave me a small (but significant to me) severance check in exchange for signing a non-disparagement agreement. I did jokingly refer to that check as my "hush money", but I had no actual issue with the company or any of my former coworkers. That company did it simply as a matter of course, I imagine to make the laying off process more predictable.

(And I was pretty appreciative of the check itself; between it and my left over vacation days, I made it pretty comfortably to my next position.)

My 5 year old had a much easier time understanding that Netflix needs to buffer or downgrade sometimes than why there are advertisements on television.

I think that's because Netflix buffering has an explanation that directly relates to the activity itself, whereas the explanation for advertisements is a lot more abstract.

I'll second the bang syntax. As the your browser's search provider, it's like having dozens of context-specific search engines built in.

The problem with that question, to me, is that the 10% difference in outcome is nearly inconsequential. By the time I'm losing (or gaining) $900, what's another $100? If the proportions were different, I think the question would be more interesting.

Usually when people say "the heap" (especially in the context of garbage collection) they mean the memory where new (non-stack) data/objects are allocated from. Usually this is the bulk of memory an application uses.

There are other meanings of the word "heap" in the realm of data structures, but I haven't personally seen "heap" the data structure talked about (or used) much in the wild.

In my personal opinion? If you are they person/company able to provide a necessary good (a patented, life-saving medicine say), then you have a moral obligation to sell it.

Similarly, I believe it immoral to sell a necessary good at exorbitant prices, but fine to sell luxury goods at whatever price you like. Of course, the question follows: What counts as "necessary"? I don't have an easy answer for that one :)

You miss my point I think. You can't eat a bank note, and you haven't killed a person you've parted it from. Indeed, requesting more bank notes than necessary for something is many levels of abstraction removed from doing a person direct harm, and that makes it harder for people to have a gut feeling about the morality of it.

That doesn't mean overcharging necessarily doesn't do real harm; it just means it requires mental effort to understand it as moral or immoral. Maybe not much, but more than deciding whether outright killing someone is immoral or not. Ergo, it is not necessarily true that no moral dilemma might benefit from discussion.

> Though if your business model is immoral when applied to poor folks, it's still immoral when applied to rich folks.

The markup on drug store cotton balls is shockingly high, like 1000%. Nobody who buys cotton balls cares though, because the $2 per bag they end up costing is a very small fraction of their income.

But take that to a developing country, and that $2 is completely unaffordable. You would be forcing people in need of sterile cotton swabs to pay a day's or a week's earnings, when their manufacture costs a few pennies.

I don't think the former example is unethical (indeed, the cost of a bag of cotton balls (in America) is probably far below what the market could truly bear). That stupendously high markup is fine because it still keeps the final price easily affordable.

In the latter example, that same markup makes cotton balls all but impossible to buy, when even a "normal" retail mark up of 25% would have kept the price in the cents and therefore at least approachable. I'd call that unethical.

I'm not so sure. People tend to have a very easy grasp of moral/immoral when it involves direct action ("It is wrong to stab this guy because he cut in line"), but the more abstract the situation, the more people need metaphor and analogies and conversation to determine what they believe is moral. It's hard to have a gut feeling about how many pieces of cheap paper is moral to take in exchange for a durable good.

I don't know about CNN, MSNBC, or Aljazeera, but Fox News admitted to fabricating stories and lying in court (bizarrely, they won the right to lie and call it news in said same court).

http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/... http://digg.com/news/entertainment/the_daily_show_fox_news_l...

(I'm for totally ignoring CNN, MSNBC, and Aljazeera as well if they admit to intentionally misleading the public.)

I find these two options a must (they're in my .vimrc):

set hidden

set switchbuf=useopen

Beyond that I just use the basic commands to navigate buffers: :ls, :b, :bl, and ctrl-^

Ctrl-^ (switch to the "alternate" (previous) file) is the one a I use the most really. Especially since windows each have their own alternate file.

Generally, I find remembering buffer numbers in a long-running session no more difficult than remembering inventory letters in Angband ;-)

Ah, yes, that does make a lot more sense. And I definitely agree that $10k is more the size of a rainy-day fund than a "here is my pile of tax evasion money" stash.