finnyspade

Whoever wrote this article appears to misunderstand what those ports on the new macbook actually are. They are USB ports!

USB-C to be specific

While yes it's an uncomfortable transition period, the idea of a common socket for all connections is amazing! This isn't Apple killing USB in favor of thunderbolt (which happens to run over the same connector), it's apple using the latest USB spec.

Wouldn't it be (with a little runtime typechecking):

function IdentityMonad(v) {

   this._v = v;

}

IdentityMonad.prototype.bind = function(f) {

   var o = f(this._v);

   if(!(o instanceof IdentityMonad)){ 

     throw new Error("function must return IdentityMonad");

   }

   return o;

}

> The actual error is very basic and only useful if you already know what it pertains to

The error is really solid at showing a type mismatch. Which is of the form "I wanted X but you gave me Y".

> that the hint be way off is actively harmful That's true and they could probably do a bit better for type mismatches on type variables vs concrete types

> just dumping the raw error What's the difference between a "raw error" and something else. If the hint was accurate would it still be a "raw error" because it's not styled like those elm errors? Any more info (aside from a better hint which I concede should be better) would have to be an actual explanation of static typechecking which seems a bit extreme.

All I'm saying is while this error isn't a paragon of what all good error messages should be, it's no more cryptic than any other similar error. Even the nicely formatted elm errors say essentially the same thing.

So having interned at Facebook, I find this post confusing. They made it very clear to us during HR onboarding that the only zero tolerance policy was on unauthorized access to user data.

The harassment stuff isn't a zero tolerance thing. They even told us to go ahead and ask out other employees if you're interested, but just don't press if you get a no.

It's pretty clear he accessed data he shouldn't have, and for that a zero-tolerance policy makes total sense.

Why can't we just share a cool topic without expressing butthurt about the popularity of js frameworks...

It appears to shell out on windows as well because it needs select. But windows doesn't have a system version of python.

So this relies on having a system version of python but there's no mention of that requirement anywhere in the repo...

didn't the article say 2 days? That's not exactly horrible response time.

I don't understand what Facebook is supposed to be guilty of...

Is Facebook supposed to somehow know the video was uploaded to YouTube before? That would require Facebook to have an index of all the content on YouTube (an unreasonable proposal).

The next best thing is to allow takedown requests which they do!

The same thing can be done by reposting on Vimeo or any of a million sites. There just is no technologically and legally sound method to detect this sort of behavior.

If you don't want your video to be reposted by someone else, post it yourself. That's not to say it's okay for pirating to happen but this isn't Facebook evil, it's people.

One might blame Facebook for prioritizing it's native videos over embedded YouTube content but their policy on that is very public and the user experience IS better.

Why is Facebook being demonized?

I agree with the overall sentiment expressed that web developers can and should do better as it comes to performance. There were a few inaccurate or misleading remarks in the article that I'd like to draw attention to:

1) Guess how those Instant Articles are formatted? HTML. Guess how those articles get to the app? HTTP.

This is misleading because it seems to equate pulling in content with loading an article. By loading these articles into the app (as opposed to launching a browser), Facebook gains the ability to do the following:

- Provide the basic styles from app-install time. Most of your css doesn't need to be downloaded.

- Skip app boot time. App's take a while to cold start, meaning I don't have to start safari before I start the web request.

- Prefetch. I don't know if they do or will do this, but facebook could reasonably prefetch articles and their resources before you click

2) Stop buying into the ‘native is better’ myth. (It’s just different.)

Another phrase for "different" is "better at different things". It turns out that the app model provides some amazing guarantees that the web can't match (and vice-versa):

- Preloaded styles and logic. Content changes, but presentation stays the same. Only download content. (no caching is not a valid solution, because exercising new parts of the code would require a download. Though some appmanifest magic may let you get pretty close)

- Cheap library inclusion. If an app is an extra MB or so it's no big deal most of the time. You can use that to load in libraries that vastly speed up developer work and can do "progressive enhancement" by supported new APIs on old OS versions. Libraries are way more costly on the web as the author points out.

- Consistent (with the OS) UX and much cheaper animations

- Lower memory footprint

These things do matter! The web is amazing, yes. No, it's not dying, but there is value in native apps and they're not equivalent. Smart engineers will make the choice based on their needs which is what both facebook and these news sources are doing.