faboo

That's only a hard requirement if you're creating a web component. Unknown elements are treated as inline elements by default, so if you're just using it for styling and using global attributes (even JS ones like onclick), you can use whatever tags you want. You only run into trouble when you start doing more advanced stuff with your non-standard elements.

What in the world is the non-"Dumpster" word for a dumpster?

I'm a vegetarian on principle, and have no problem eating GMO anything.

OTOH, I've been vegetarian for 15 years and most meat flavors and textures have worn on me.

Amusingly, I'm in the reverse situation: loving working in Haskell and reeally want to try Rust but I just don't have the time.

For what it's worth, Haskell can be compiled to code that's quite fast. Somewhat unfortunately, the difference between GHC's vanilla output and its speed-optimized output can be quite vast, which I think gives the impression that the language or a given program is necessarily slow.

Apple's T&Cs are so long because they usually show you like 6 different documents, most of which aren't even in regard to iTunes. (Google does this too.)

It depends on how you've packaged your application. Technically, yes, the user needs NW.js to run your application, but you can ship with NW.js if you like (it's just one fat executable). When NW.js is run, it looks for a NW.js app to run in the working directory, so all the user needs to do is run the NW.js binary you provided and it will launch your app.

> That's going to break so quickly here in Boston.

Depends on what you mean by "break". In Boston, you might just get, epic, hour-long pong battles. Seriously, the pedestrian signal situation in Boston is so haphazard you could hardly make it worse by introducing experiments like this.

I don't know, I always found the perl and zsh man pages to be rather pleasant. They were sprawling, sure, but having long ago given up on brevity, they have no fear of meticulously describing how a feature or flag works. And they're just man pages, so you don't need to read the manual-for-the-manual first like I always find myself doing when I'm forced to use info.

Between Bob's army and insipid comments rising to the top, the comments sections of a lot of interesting, community oriented channels became useless (more so, even, than before). If nobody is actually looking at the comments section, then it doesn't really make technical sense to keep it as it is - it's just busy work for their engineers. So it makes sense then for them to either attempt further fixes, or, in true Google fashion, simply remove the feature altogether.

I don't know about the rest of G+, but since the integration, I've been unable to comment on YouTube videos with my G+ account, something that worked fine before. I'd certainly call that "not usable".

Google Translate actually doesn't do a terrible job on the article text (it's not perfect, but it's understandable). It does kind of mess-up the English in the email though.

> Also there are worse things in the world than having to have that discussion with your kid.

The rest of your post is totally valid, but I think the above is a big take-away for those of us who don't abuse our kids. Parenting is in large part discussion, and some of the more important discussions are about uncomfortable things.

To be fair, if camus hasn't heard of Edge it isn't his fault - it's Adobe's. Which, in a way, helps to emphasize his point.

I've wondered for a while if the price for television advertising was/is inflated due to the fact that there's no way to track its impact. Web advertisements usually pay per click these days, which at least measures some kind of engagement, and yet advertisers apparently pay significantly less for it in aggregate than they do television advertising, which seems backward to me.