331–340 of 381 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems I have to "register" with the Economist to read that.
It's a reference to "Say what you like about Mussolini, he made the trains run on time." This quip is generally used sarcastically or wryly. "Say what you like about [something that's seriously bad], at least [frivolous matter] has improved."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could see some sort of alternative URL bar (" https://nyt.com/somearticle/ | served by https://somecdn.example.org/blah" ), but complete replacement is far too dangerous and confusing in that it is completely hidden.
The New York Times surely already serves their pages through a CDN, silently, and with the CDN having the full technical capability to modify the pages arbitrarily. Signed exchange allows anyone to serve pages, without the ability to modify them in any way. (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think thats part of the point. It makes his statement conversationally non-falsifiable because if I say something about (taking a guess here) systemd, that will say more about my own biases than what I am responding to.
My best guess was Jira, not everything made sense but it was the only thing I could think of.
It's wrong to trust the URL bar. For example, this search [1] has as top link an ad that boasts "google.com", and it really is! And if you click on it, you'll end up on a google.com site, which nominally helps with printers, but in reality it's a tech support scam. So much of the distrust here is that google wants to be everything: to host their content and publisher content and user content; to broker ads and recomm…
So it is kind of frustrating to see someone offering to fix a problem they helped create in the first place through neglect or carelessness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same could be said of any CDN hosted javascript library. For example: jquery. There is an open intent to implement support for publishers self-hosting the AMP library as well.
What's an open intent? Where is this documented?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we please stop trying to pretend AMP is some sort of community-driven open source project? AMP was created by Google, for the benefit of Google. We are not obligated to play along every time a company says “open source.”
> We are not obligated to play along every time a company says “open source.” This is the point. People easily confuse "open source" with "free software" and "community driven". A lot of corporate-driven open source greenwashed the dark patterns of closed source: centralized development, user lock-in, walled gardens, poor backward compatibility, forced software and hardware upgrades.
This concern has been raised time again with every major Google open-source project e.g. Android, Chromium, Golang etc. and that concerns have helped improve certain aspects of the project.
But, I wonder whether a huge corporate like Google can build such large scale projects without such criticism, if the the project needs to be successful they to gain from it after-all they are investing their employees and other resources in it. And them being invested in it, is a major reason for adoption by other parties and resulting in a successful open-source project.
More over, such large projects have helped overall SW ecosystem and even startups economically. I for one would say, without such large open-source projects I wouldn't have even been able to build products from a village in India and compete with products from valley.
All I'm saying is, them being open-source at least helps us raise concerns and make them take actions; being a complete walled garden and just asking to 'trust us' is much worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a reference to "Say what you like about Mussolini, he made the trains run on time." This quip is generally used sarcastically or wryly. "Say what you like about [something that's seriously bad], at least [frivolous matter] has improved."
As far as I know it’s not even true of Mussolini though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might want to work on extending the span of your attention, there's pretty dismal future ahead if people have trouble extracting the meaning from a few lines of text.
My attention span is long enough to read and understand what was written here,but that's beyond the point. Long, multipart sentences are hard to read in general. This isn't my own anecdotal data point: most newspaper or book editors would have similar guidelines. Whether someone decides to usesuch rules, is up to them.