Looks like most of the negative comments are from designers which totally makes sense; you're getting paid for coming up with neat little buttons and so on... but on the other hand, why didn't you designers come up with a good (open-source) framework for these things. Teach people, give them rope, enable them... oh, and there are already tools like bootswatch coming up. This is not the end, just the beginning for a sane design for the rest of us (aka the developers).
Exactly - just set your phone to EDGE and pull up a tweet page in your mobile browser and you'll see how long it takes. And not only for the 1st page load but for all others too. I can pull up a Facebook page (while being logged in) and have that served to me in a fraction of the time it takes for Twitter. Compare that to the feature-set and your opinion will change quickly. Just try it, no stats & graphs needed, you'll see...
Honestly, Facebook's load time is quite phenomenal. It is one of the most feature-laden and complex consumer web applications out there and they still manage to set the bar with regards to speed and multi-platform usability.
Sadly Facebook's tools for other sites are some of the slowest things on the web. That they're attached to every post and so can be called 10+ times per page really doesn't help.
Scrolling on TechCrunch with your mouse over the post area is a hilariously pitiful experience.
Actually, since I blocked all Facebook widgets (tracking or otherwise), it has the nice side effect of not loading the comments when I accidentally land on a TechCrunch article.
HipHop affects server-side performance, but the fast loading is down to some very clever usage of JavaScript.
I can't find a write-up about it now, but last time I dug in to it they were pulling a really clever trick where their pages were served with a very light chunk of HTML (just enough to layout the page) followed by a sequence of script blocks that populated different areas. The magic is that the script blocks came back in the order in which the relevant back-end services replied - so if the timeline service replied instantly, the timeline would be rendered first - then as other services (notifications, app list, etc) finished new script blocks would be written out in to the HTTP stream already open to the browser and that content would appear.
This works amazingly well across all browsers, because the original browsers from the 1990s were designed with modems in mind and had to progressively render the page as it loaded. It turns out you can use that ability to serve a stream of script blocks to a page and dramatically reduce time-to-content-visibility.
You don't need to be uneducated, insane, or an idiot to withdraw all of your money when you suspect that your bank is going to fail. It can be an individually rational move even if you merely suspect that other customers suspect that your bank is going to fail.
Ah, and given there is a known limit on the future amount of Bitcoins in existence, the system may very well end up with no bitcoins at all if all are lost... right?
Highly unlikely. It's more likely that the value of bitcoins goes up slightly with each minute loss of bitcoins, and people start using them in smaller fractions.
I'm totally fine with auto-completion, no need for aliases here though it might make sense if you are using the same longish command over and over again...
E.g. the following does the trick for tcsh, search the web for '<myfavshell> git completion' and you'll find your way:
I guess it's geared towards some different use case, just compare the workflow with something like Dropbox:
- with Dropbox I've a public folder which is linked from my Finder sidebar so I can simply drop an existing file into it and copy the public URL by right-clicking on it
- with Crate I've to open a tab with the website, navigate to the file, drag back to browser (not Finder, where I am when navigating to the file), then copy the URL, then decide what to do with the original file on my harddisk
Maybe that's easier for some tasks or for some users, I don't know. Maybe the last bit is crucial: do I want to keep the file locally (Dropbox) or just put it out there?
For me, the initial download & setup of something like Dropbox is worth the benefits it provides.
This reminds me of some flaw with Skype's billing system which allowed me to download invoices for virtually every paying business customer just by replacing some chars in a URL. The invoices included a lot of personal details together with various bank account & phone numbers.
Took me 8 months to get someone at Skype to acknowledge the issue; to my knowledge it was never escalated. Wouldn't be surprised if it's still there...
