jggube

Yeah, you'd have to enforce very strict nesting rules in the document structure, which is impractical, especially for more complicated, multi-user web apps. Classes provide flexibility and atomicity.

What’s the advantage of [shape-type="1"] over .shape-type-1? In terms of CSS selector performance, classes are often faster than custom attributes, so I also don't know if there are any advantages in this particular use-case.

Though I disagree with you on your issues with the title of the post, I did really like how you've described your definition of an introvert. That you can prefer to be an introvert but still embody qualities that we associate with extroverts (which is what the article is about.)

Under your definition, I'm definitely an introvert. I have no issues with public speaking, leading people, or being shy.

But if given a choice, I'd rather spend time thinking by myself, I would rather sit quietly and listen to other people in a dinner table, I prefer working on my own, and having peaceful alone time at home to "recharge" instead of going out.

>> "It’s our job to help translate their vision to the development team in a way that they can understand and accept."

>> "Similarly, we need to speak on behalf the developers to help reign in the designers, at times. If they are coming up with concepts that will be extremely difficult or time consuming to implement, we can explain the limitations of the technology and the complexity involved in implementing their designs"

I dislike this stereotype that developers can't communicate and work side-by-side with designers, and vice versa. It seems the writer thinks developers can't communicate or speak and need someone to translate for them, like they're a machine. It's quite disparaging, actually.

I also see a danger in having a middleman, so to speak. Things can get lost in translation.

This article was written by a guy who created his web app without knowing Rails. In a few months, he had learned Rails, and had designed, developed and launched his own app. So don't be discouraged!

There's so many wonderful resources out there on UI/app development, but what I got from this article is that these lessons you'll learn best by creating (and using) web apps.

Here's the author's Rails article on the same site: http://sixrevisions.com/web-development/why-making-web-apps-...

Long-term, it seems wise to just go AWS. The difference of learning AWS versus deploying right now in Linode (if you have experienced web server engineers) is negligible. I'd say even 30-40 hours worth of learning/testing can get you up and running in AWS.

Also, you have to think about possible downtime migrating from Linode to AWS (or increasing your Linode resources) or setting up a mechanism for no-downtime.

I agree with what you say here: "go directly to AWS, take the extra time to set it up and be done with it." To me, if the initial time/resource cost is negligible (which in this case, IMHO, it is), I'm going for the permanent solution instead of what seems to be a stop-gap solution. Less headaches, more time to devote to other parts of your start-up at a time of growth where your time and resources will be scarce, and fewer things to worry about. I'd rather pay the time up front when I'm still starting out, rather than later where it will be more difficult and most probably more costly.

This applies only because you already know AWS is the end-game. Otherwise, I'd just launch in Linode first since it's quick and I (and you) know how it works already, then deal with scaling later when you actually know you need to scale.

And don't knock Linode; it can take a beating.

The point still stands; this isn't an example of why startups shouldn't fear giants/incumbents. Just because Google couldn't/chose not to get a product like Amazon S3 out the door to compete with Amazon, doesn't mean incumbents can't replicate and dominate a bootstrapped start-up's low-cost, innovative web app or mobile app.

The statement should say that startups with innovative, hard-to-reproduce products have nothing to fear; you'll either produce a product that they'll choose not to compete with/can't compete with (Twitter, Facebook) or get bought by them.

How many startups get killed because they can't compete with the big guys, though? Here's an example: http://family.go.com/assets/bubbleshare/

Amazon was hardly a startup 5 years ago. And we're talking about a service and a space that's difficult to replicate and get into. S3 had resources most startups won't have to get that 5-year lead.

I suggest being as specific as possible. Seeking Sponsorship for [whatever]. Otherwise, it seems to comes off as an impersonal, mass-bcc'ed email, spammed to like a thousand email addresses.

You're still forced to create multiple stylesheets if you use CSS media queries. Although browsers that benefit most from media queries (e.g, Safari in iPhone) do support media queries.

What this covers, though, are small-monitor users (e.g. netbooks) who use browsers without CSS media query support (say, a netbook user using IE8).

It's terribly inaccurate, based on my experience. For the Feb 2011 (most recent available stat they have), they were wrong by -314%. They should make the fact that their service is inaccurate obvious; otherwise, they're misleading many people.

Their data points are from 2 million people. In the U.S. alone, there are 230 million+ interet users: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=it_net_us...

I only took basic stats courses in college, but I know enough to know that's nowhere close to a big enough sample size to be statistically significant.

Is that the typical response to bug reports, or an exception to the rule?

A tourist visa is not designed for extended stays, so yes, going in and out of the country not only goes against the visa's purpose, but also, if you do it enough times, it'll probably raise some flags.

The tricky part that I see with your situation is that you want to live in one country, but work remotely for a company outside of that country. If your company has a base of operations in Thailand, you can get a business visa, which most countries will offer.

Some countries have self-employed visas which allow you to stay there with the only requirement being that you show proof that you can sustain yourself financially.

Some countries have entrepreneur visas that require proof of capital and an intent to establish a business in said country.

Some countries have visas for people who want to stay there for a long time, with no other requirement.

Since you're saying the company might hire Thai citizens, some countries also offer visas for people just evaluating a country for a potential place to start (or extend) a company.

I'm sure you've already done your research, but I suggest, if you haven't already, that you contact an immigration lawyer in that country to see what your options are; it's a worthwhile investment, and if it results in you getting the appropriate type of visa, then it saves you money from the plane rides and inconvenience of leaving the country every 30-60 days.

In these situations, especially if it can result in the company you're working for to get involved if things go south, it's best to err on the side of caution.

I take no stock in Compete stats. It grossly miscalculates traffic statistics.

Here's an example: http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/experts-misunderestimate-our-...

What I have to do is to leave copying the first letter if I only want to copy the domain name. For example, example.com, I'll just highlight xample.com. It sucks, but it's a sliver quicker than having to delete http://

I'm glad that at least 24 people agree with you; I thought I was the only person who had an issue with the way Chrome treats URLs in the Omni bar. I wish there was an option that lets you choose.

I may write a Google Chrome extension for this (but how many people would really want an extension just for this problem?)

In most cases for social media buttons supplied by these web services, you can't. You will typically have to reference a JS library at the position of the document you want to render the button at. You put them after </body> and they'll render in that position in the document. The above tip is smart and works around that by asynchronously updating the DOM when the scripts are ready (i.e., downloaded).

If you meant "put the OP's scripts after the body element" -- yeah, you could do that (at least for sure with GA async code, you can), and that would be a good idea so that you serve and render CSS first, making your pages feel more responsive. But that's not what your comment reads as.

When you say "website", is it content-driven or a web application/tool? Either way, ads would be a good (only?) option.

If it's content-driven, you can do premium content stuff (like eBooks, downloadables, etc.)

And when you say "enough money," how much are we talking about? It's all relative: the more traffic you get, the more money you get. I would focus on growing your community and audience before even thinking about monetization. Have that behind your head, of course, but you're not going to make money if you don't have traffic or a community. You're not going to make anything significant if your product sucks. Focus on the product first, the money will come eventually. It's an investment of time and a bit of money (web hosting on a VPS is like $20 a month and you just scale when you need to).

If I had to guess, it's because he doesn't want to sue a company he has a stake in. That's like suing yourself. Patent and intellectual property copyright is a funny thing; the owner can enforce (or try to get it enforced) when they feel like it. They usually let it go when it's to their benefit.

> "The only one missing from that list is Microsoft"

FTA: "Notably missing from the defendants' list are Microsoft, in which Mr. Allen remains a major investor"

Clicking on the site on Google Chrome, I got the standard-issue "Warning: Suspected Malware Detected."

You can be plenty successful without becoming an Eagle. But you’ll never get anywhere by doing things half-way.

Sounds like a pretty solid definition of success to me.

Anyone else experience the IE8 bug (or know of a documented case and solution for it) mentioned in the article?