tomkin

My wife says: "they probably ran out of space on their server"

Please. There was no reason to bring up JIRA. Uncalled for by any sane man's standards.

The article reads as a perceived straw man attack against PWA idea, but the author really captured the heart of the issue right here:

  Google is, by far, the most aggressive in adopting
  new browser standards behind PWAs in Chrome. Other vendors,
  such as Mozilla, Microsoft, and, in particular, Apple,
  have been much less aggressive...

Facebook is AOL. We didn't like AOL for _reasons_. Can we just keep finding those reasons valid, please?

I'll say what I've said in another thread on this matter, which is, no one outside of this bubble buys this shit. There are global supply-chain networks that move millions of products, and they don't employ as much as a micro-blogging platform. It's hubris to think we're so special.

You're making a stretch, here. The difference between 100 to 500 or 1000 is exponentially different than the difference of 100 to 3,700. They don't need this many people. Period. This is a "who's dick is bigger" contest over a thinly veiled (and absurd) justification of infrastructure. No one outside of this bubble buys this shit. There are global supply-chain networks that move millions of products, and they don't employ as much as a micro-blogging platform. Come on, now.

I guess I would just point to GitHub, Shopify, Pandora, Spotify, Snapchat, LinkedIn, MailChimp, WordPress.Com, (insert everyone else basically here).

I think you're making a few assertions that would be more honestly served if you conceded as assumptions.

Twitter validated it's own employee count with an absurd overhead.

It has concerns of scale, performance and user experience. So does GitHub, Shopify, Pandora, Spotify, Snapchat, LinkedIn, MailChimp, WordPress.com, etc, and yet, manage will much less resources and overhead. Oh yea, and fucking Netflix - which - as far as I can tell - has much more and difficult problems to solve at a much faster pace. They employ 4,700.

As of this comment, Twitter employs 3,583 people.

What they needed to do was hire 100 talented people, allow third-party clients, try and occasionally acknowledge the developers who implement their platform, and stopped with the asinine "we're trying so hard guys" blog posts. We get it. You're having a hard time and you want everyone off of your grass. That's fine, but don't come asking for sugar at my house 'cause you ain't Beyonce.

Twitter's biggest mistake was hiring thousands of people when they only needed 30. It doesn't need thousands of people. It doesn't even need 100.

Twitter is not a technological marvel. It's something Oprah promoted, and Donald Trump bitches on.

And now, it's an API with a (social) class-based access, and without irony, also promotes itself as a leader in conversation and exchange.

Steve Gutenberg would differ in opinion.

It's important to understand that Facebook is incredibly large, and the fact that any software scaled with them to the point they are presently at, is a "on the shoulders of giants" situation that seems to actually be working well enough for them to become a billion dollar enterprise.

Also, the building of infrastructure that takes on scale that's not yet been required is somewhat inefficient. But it does beg the question: If Facebook is limited by its infrastructure, what responsibilities do they have to build software that continues to scale for future organizations?

I love things like this, but I find I have about 30 of these sorts of things bookmarked, and I never think to pull them up when I'm in need – I immediately go to Google and find something like the Mozilla ref @shpx mentioned. It's a real problem I wish there was a solution for. Other than of course having a better memory.

> Were those not acquisitions that withered as opposed to Dropbox new product ventures?

This is one of those distinctions without a difference.

When Obama says that Snowden created serious security implications, do you think that's from a point of privilege, or simply placing ideology over practicality? Based on everything I know, both Obama and Snowden appear to be fairly authentic characters. It seems weird that they would have opposing view points. If we're to assume the best ideals are forged though intelligent reasoning and debate, shouldn't they have both concluded the same? Glenn Greenwald has proven himself to be less than authentic at times. If I could pass a criticism Snowden's way, it was who he went to, not what he did. Am I wrong to feel this way?

"Crazy cat lady" is possibly more than just a term of endearment.

I really don't know how you got here. BMI has been raked over the coals (new and old methods) for being wildly inaccurate for anyone outside of a conditional range. IQ does not predict what to expect from a human being.

Those who double down on IQ as being infallible have something to lose if it's proven to be hack. And history is not on your side here.

I agree that it's like blood sugar/pressure, but that's sort of my point. I think if you used blood pressure to judge some one's physical capabilities like you would use IQ to judge some one's mental capacity, you would run into unfair outcomes.

"some one with an IQ greater than 120 is definitely intelligent" == "some one with high blood pressure is definitely unable."

I'm fine with IQ so long as we're not using it as a scientific form of measurement...but we currently seem to.

My argument is that no one can claim BMI or IQ is a scientific form of measurement.

I hate to say this, but IQ tests are BMI tests for the brain, and about as accurate. If a coffee, bad sleep, or a dose of Ritalin can change the result – at its very nature – it is not a scientific method of measurement (the ability to retest and get the same result).

We could say it's a good read of a spectrum of mental capacity, but to suggest that IQ is capable of anything more is whack science.

Twitter lost me when they dumped on their ecosystem. The changes made to the platform in recent years are obvious grasp at straws rather than anything revolutionary. It's clear that investors have become Twitter's main concern – to a point where even something like a paywall or subscription wouldn't surprise me.

Twitter does not need to have as many employees as it does, and has them solely to rise to some zero sum pissing match.

Who knows what they will spend the extra money on, could be healthcare, boats, TVs, whatever. But new jobs will be created in these expanded industries.

It really, really bothers me the constant "x technology will drive x people out of work, therefore we need Universal Basic Income, so they won't starve!"

This is incredibly fanciful look at the future. The population cannot grow AND lose jobs to machines. Disruption is having its own variant of Moore's Law, in that, we are disrupting more industries at a faster rate.

UBI, or some form of which, will not only be necessary, but likely inevitable. The improvement of humanity you speak of is in fact a humanity that will survive on creativity, not labour. Labour is done.

Additionally, capitalism doesn't care about "expanded industries" any more than Moore's Law cares about engineers who made their career in the 1980s.

The transition is necessary, and it will be hard, and it won't happen without social security. It's a complete fantasy to see it happening any other way.

I agree with that (technical person's) perspective, but that was not the mainline argument. Steve Jobs got on stage and said it was a hunk of battery wasting crap that invaded your privacy. I'm saying you can make that case regardless of your platform de jour.

Ahhh. Remember when this was just a Flash problem, and getting rid of Flash was going to rid the world of evil?

Spoiler: that didn't happen.

And if something is patently false I shouldn't be able to point to hundreds of examples where you're wrong.

You're talking about the economy in a "Plinko chip" sort of way, and I'm talking about community building. If you want good products and a well paying society, you need to promote more individual nodes rather than giant motherships. And by "promote", I mean actually want it instead of talking about how the rules apply to the current system.

Mega-companies will only ever end up eventually creating a G+. 300 smaller companies each doing a few things well. That is true growth.

Every time you use the word "growth" to describe "success", you will find that you only have new mouths to feed.

Why does it need to grow? Maybe growth is limited, and when it's not, it's dangerous.

So can the TSA do engineer profiling? Seems like it would be more accurate?

What? Where did you derive that from?

Dude, I'm just trying to align text in CSS, and you're all like "here's an OS in js."