It's funny because it's critical of sites for low quality "AI written listicles" but it's essentially a list of domains written by AI. And the result is there seems to be no consistent application of the principles expressed.
Why are we blocking amazon.co.uk and amazon.in? Why not block amazon.com by whatever that logic is? hulu.com gets a block, but why not netflix.com? Or why hulu.com in the first place? If there is a reason, it would be valuable to express that so people aren't just blindly blocking sites simply for being popular.
In most other languages this would fail code review as it is overly terse. I can see it does match the mathematical notation but if the language is supposed to provide any layer of abstraction then it doesn't do a very good job IMO. I guess the target market are mathematicians who already understand and write mathematical notation.
What is the name of the language where the whole game of life was literally one line of code? That was the example that convinced me that terseness can be too much.
also some physical theories which are summarised as
A=F(P)
Anterior=Factor(Posterior) ,
the future is a function of the past.
the difference to E=MCC is that the later one actually contains physical entities and that 'Factor' is often not well defined.
Basically what happened is that we changed our wordpress theme, and it turns out that the new one puts a bit more pressure on our server than the old one. We used to be able to handle a top spot on hacker news, but this time our server died on us.
We decided to switch to cloudflare to mitigate some of the load. This requires changing DNS settings, and it seems that for some people, there's been a gap when they haven't been able to access the page. This is of course a little unfortunate. However, it does mean that other people can actually access the page rather than just getting stuck loading.
It's all a bit hectic here at the moment. It's possible there's some other problems that I haven't yet fully discovered.
Not to be a downer but an academic study found this to have limited effect. I heard about it on freakonomics so can't vouch for how biased it was. Just an interesting point against the economist article. http://freakonomics.com/2013/09/26/would-a-big-bucket-of-cas...
The Economist article talks about someone in Kenya being given $1000USD. That's about 84800KSH.
Minimum wage for Kenya varies, but 4855KSH ($57USD) per month is what a general laborer gets.[1]
That person is getting very roughly 17 months income. That's very different to "winning the lottery".
But perhaps this man is one of the 50% of Kenyans living below the poverty line.[2] ($2USD per day) So, if he gets $1.25USD per day a $1000USD lump sum would be a bit more than 2 years income.
Microfinance is not the wonder that people once thought it was[3], but giving money to people directly seems to work quite well.
The plugin details seems easiest but they are say "packet" and not http request and not necessarily by a browser. Presuming they have compromised the machine this staining will be affecting the network stack somehow most likely at an IP level.
What's the process for going about decrypting these things? I've seen some that are just base64 and the like - but those have obvious patterns. How are you meant to decrypt something when you don't even know the algorithm? Is it just a series of brute forces against different algos?
I've tried caesar shift using Q as E (based on frequency) so M is A but that failed epicly... also tried a viginere using GCHQ as the key word but again failed epicly :L
Not even bothering with Playfair.
simple letter to Ascii doesn't work either and i really can't be bothered with going stupidly complicated :/
To me it sounds like a good thing. We end up with 3 major rendering engines on the desktop; Gecko (Firefox), Trident (IE) and Blink (Opera and Chrome) and 2 major on mobile Blink (Opera and Chrome) and Webkit (Safari). This I think will help shake up some of monoculture.
Chrome definitely doesn't have any level of domination over the enterprise market like IE6 on Windows did. That was the problem with IE6 not the browser per se - it was revolutionary when it was released, MS just killed the team. The chance that enterprises will stick with Chrome is very unlikely.
As it stands at the moment, the only downside is the duplicated development between the Safari and Chrome teams. Webkit will suffer, but the web won't. Apple don't care enough, the web isn't the top of their priority list.
If anything, the iOS monopoly of mobile web traffic (in the first world) is a problem which certainly isn't changed by this fork.
I was all worried about this being the beginning of a proprietary browser, Google owning both a majority of user services and a majority of their browser tech stack. Both hidden in some proprietary garden.
Then I stopped sucking and looked up stuff from the article.
Blink is a part of the chromium project, and is equivalently open[fn:0]. So that means it's equivalent to any other open source fork.
Mailing list drama, duplicating technical work, etc will happen but hopefully this will contribute to having even more high quality open web implementations available.
Webkit was the only thing the mobile web had that apps did not: a mostly un-fragmented codebase. Now developers will have to test their mobile web-apps against even more browsers reducing time-to-market efficiency. Hopefully competition will lead to faster improvements by top players (Google), but the more likely scenario is the least incentivized player (Apple) will drag their feet re-creating an IE6 scenario where one browser will slow mass adaption of standards.
Mobile web developers should already be used to testing their work on multiple different devices anyway. The deployed versions of WebKit differ quite significantly across the myriad of mobile devices on the market, and WebKit is just the layout engine anyway. It doesn't run JS or talk directly to the network stacks, and it isn't responsible for any GPU acceleration that may or may not be available.
If you're doing anything more complicated than serving static HTML and images to mobile devices you will already need to test on as many different devices as is feasible for you. It's basically unheard of for something to work across all WebKit based browsers just because your CI is telling you it works OK in desktop Chrome.
My problem with the Webkit monopoly was that it made it harder to use a FOSS browser. Webkit Nightly and Chromium are both nightly browsers which isn't good for the majority of people. Firefox is FOSS, but if Webkit took over, it would be hurt, as it has been.
Chromium as packaged by most Linux distributions is not a "nightly build" sort of a thing. It's only a hassle if you run a non-FOSS operating system without a package manager, and in that case having to run Chrome instead of Chromium is the least of your issues re: FOSS.
Which means getting Apple to allow other rendering engines on iOS should be an even bigger issue with Apple users in the future. Otherwise Safari will become the IE6 of iOS.
Actually, the issue is not "no choice in rendering engine", the issue (with IE6) was "a shitty rendering engine" - I for one don't care if Safari / Webkit remains the only rendering engine on iOS for eternity, as long as webpages work and look well. Because that's all that matters to me, as a consumer.
IE6 wasn't shitty when it was released, it was shitty after a couple of years of no updates. If a substantial amount of users stays on older iOS releases, you will see the same problems with old Safari versions. (As you might already with the default browser on Android 2.3, for example, though availability of e.g. Opera, including the new Webkit Opera, helps by providing an alternative there. There won't be new alternative engines for old iOS versions.)
and firefox is the IE6 of firefox os ... what you are saying doesnt make sense. A mobile doesnt have to accept multiple browsers. Can you run chrome on WP8 ? no.
That's somewhat different though because the browser and the OS is the same in Firefox OS so you would have to switch the entire OS - which in itself shouldn't be a problem once the app API:s has been finalized and standardized and implemented by others like Chrome OS (and since Google puts a big emphasize on standardization in their Blink announcement it is actually pretty likely that such an implementation will eventually happen)
When it comes to Firefox OS it is more of a question of whether phone manufacturers will allow you to switch OS on your device or not, something that eg. FairPhone has been said to be investigating, wanting to ship their device with an option of either Android or Firefox OS.
But as long as Firefox OS' API:s gets standardized and implemented by others Firefox OS can't ever turn into an IE6 because there is nothing in Firefox OS that keeps you from switching to something else, which the apps in iOS do.
> A mobile doesnt have to accept multiple browsers.
My phone is running Android 4.1.1 and the default browser is good, but my preference is for mobile Firefox 20.0, which I use instead. I'm glad my mobile accepts multiple browsers, because it allows me to choose the application I want to use.
That's my point. You should be able to run other browsers on WP8 and Windows RT, too.
What if iOS or WP8 had Android's market share? Do you really think that would be good for the web? We just happen to be lucky to have Android, an OS that does allow other browser engines on it, to dominate right now.
Isn't this contradictory? If a significant/relevant chunk of people use WebKit, and WebKit development lags behind Blink (and the others), then how will this not affect the web?
This is assuming that Apple cares very much about browser market share. They're not really a web company, they just need a decent browser to include with their OS. Nothing stops them from switching to Blink (or Gecko) and letting someone else spend the money building a competitive browser that they can just include for free.
And that's the point. They care to the point that their operating systems continue to have competitive browsers available... but now they do. Why keep throwing money at it once you have what you need when others are willing to pay in your stead?
Just like IE6 had to catch up to stay in the market, and thus could not hurt the web? :) And installing an alternative browser was easier on Windows machines than on mobile devices.
It doesn't even matter who will be the leader - if Apple leads, Android users will lose; if Google leads, Apple users will lose. Except if people start to buy smartphones based on the HTML rendering engine.
Except the assumption here is that improvements must necessarily be slower. But that's not necessarily true: collaboration between Chromium and WebKit was already incredibly problematic and was definitely slowing people down (http://infrequently.org/2013/04/probably-wrong/).
So there's a tradeoff--you're splitting people's efforts, and that's bad, but you're also removing pain points that slow down development.
He didn't say the Web wouldn't be affected; he said it wouldn't suffer. And it won't, because it forces the WebKit (and Gecko) folks to keep up with Blink, and the Blink folks to keep up with their keeping up. Everybody wins.
Extensively modified WebKit, I believe (at least compared to the system WebKit on Android). That being said, given that their customized engine targets Android, I suspect it is more likely than not that they'll switch to Blink.
