snlacks

There's a dissertation and thousands of articles(one if which this comments section links to) that go into all the minutiae of a "proper" REST implementation. My comment poses the idea that an understanding of the proper or pure implementation isn't as important as the broad concepts that you are saying define the whole idea of REST. On the crux of the argument, we are in agreement - those academic details don't really matter.

It doesn't really matter what the dissertation says. Because we don't follow dogma. REST has evolved. Whether people understand it or not isn't that important, what matters is the patterns that emerge that people are actually implementing on working applications.

I don't think it's because people are offended at the use of the word master, in this case. I think, that it's symbolic. By making a point of getting rid of the word master, you're showing that black lives matter.

What's the issue? There's two that are unavoidable.

The maximum speed of moving data from one physical place to another, moving data from the hard drive to the motherboard and the ram to the cpu/cache is faster than from the internet to a computer. To he speed of light is still noticably slow when you're making round trips to get data.

The other issue is configuration, even if automated, software needs to make decisions about how to deal with different hardware and system differences. This takes time to bootstrap after initial load increase time to usuability or it can be done on the fly slowing down the interactions.

No one's delivered? There were and are plenty of platforms for full apps on the web. All of them require: loading each time or elevated privileges above the normal browser. This is not the reason they haven't taken off. Security isn't the reason either.

It isn't used because it's just not how the suppliers of content nor consumers of the web want to use the web.

If they want a full featured app, they use it. Even with super fast speeds, latency and minimal startup time still make the browser unattractive for this.

Web users and content providers want linkable documents.

I'd argue that the modern browser stack is so good that we see installed apps adopting html/css/js for the presentation layer.

You know there's a difference between what is most likely true and what's provable in court, right? It's perfectly reasonable to see all the facts, many of which aren't permitted to be considered by a jury, and then say, "wow,these laws are messed up, they let the powerful people get away with crimes. We should change that and hold them accountable."

Likewise, it's not logically consistent to say " well, yeah it looks really bad but because a court can't prove it, I'm going to advocate they they are morally innocent. " Moral and legal aren't the same thing.

Selling off undervalued assets to the same investors while they screw over employees and small share holders?

There's no reason why "figure out what to do next" can't be a concrete task. I set up a daily schedule and I schedule reassessing and specifying more detail into my work.

Causation? Are we sure it's not being uderreported mental illness and people moving to the cities because of mental illness and addiction problems?

The anti-visual noise bias has gone too far. You remove boxes, underlines, and understandable cues like arrows, then they remove words and replace them with nonsense icons. Most UIs make no sense.

I agree with the idea that there's too much reliance on in-app education, but this post quickly starts snowballing false metaphors into an extreme of a label is bad design.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the link to the inbox saying "inbox"

Users don't know what all your iconography means.

App design isn't just graphic design or industrial design. It's not airport or device design either.

The app has two purposes, the user wants and what the app provider wants. The problems become more challenging when those two parties desires don't match. Making an app that makes it easy to buy something, take a note, edit an image, or share something with people isn't rocket science with modern OSes and Libraries. These choices are central to discussion because metrics started becoming more important than the core use.

Sometimes this makes business sense, like in a social media app where they want you to stay longer after you share. But this isn't only true because it's a crowded market. Sometimes it doesn't, where a sales app loses sales because they try too hard to move people from what people came to buy to another thing (another product, a membership, a extended warranty, a social media share).

Devs using the newest tech at start-ups, hobbies, and in their side work leads to the menegerie of today's Node Microservices Containers (or whatever) becoming tomorrow's Java 8 on Windows 2012.

Interestingly, I work at a medium sized company that is updating existing tech to microservices and the cloud because 5 years later, it seems like those are good investments that return good value in ease of configuration, deployment, etc.

I am autistic. I tend to get stuck in reading something in the context I was already thinking in.