tomkin

My wife says: "they probably ran out of space on their server"

Please. There was no reason to bring up JIRA. Uncalled for by any sane man's standards.

The article reads as a perceived straw man attack against PWA idea, but the author really captured the heart of the issue right here:

  Google is, by far, the most aggressive in adopting
  new browser standards behind PWAs in Chrome. Other vendors,
  such as Mozilla, Microsoft, and, in particular, Apple,
  have been much less aggressive...

The only thing more important than the "native vs. web debate" is user experience and accessibility. When "Mozilla, Microsoft, and Apple" become more aggressive, we will all naturally evolve to the (relatively) better option. The author argues with the wrong people.

Facebook is AOL. We didn't like AOL for _reasons_. Can we just keep finding those reasons valid, please?

I'll say what I've said in another thread on this matter, which is, no one outside of this bubble buys this shit. There are global supply-chain networks that move millions of products, and they don't employ as much as a micro-blogging platform. It's hubris to think we're so special.

You're making a stretch, here. The difference between 100 to 500 or 1000 is exponentially different than the difference of 100 to 3,700. They don't need this many people. Period. This is a "who's dick is bigger" contest over a thinly veiled (and absurd) justification of infrastructure. No one outside of this bubble buys this shit. There are global supply-chain networks that move millions of products, and they don't employ as much as a micro-blogging platform. Come on, now.

I guess I would just point to GitHub, Shopify, Pandora, Spotify, Snapchat, LinkedIn, MailChimp, WordPress.Com, (insert everyone else basically here).

I think you're making a few assertions that would be more honestly served if you conceded as assumptions.

Twitter validated it's own employee count with an absurd overhead.

It has concerns of scale, performance and user experience. So does GitHub, Shopify, Pandora, Spotify, Snapchat, LinkedIn, MailChimp, WordPress.com, etc, and yet, manage will much less resources and overhead. Oh yea, and fucking Netflix - which - as far as I can tell - has much more and difficult problems to solve at a much faster pace. They employ 4,700.

As of this comment, Twitter employs 3,583 people.

What they needed to do was hire 100 talented people, allow third-party clients, try and occasionally acknowledge the developers who implement their platform, and stopped with the asinine "we're trying so hard guys" blog posts. We get it. You're having a hard time and you want everyone off of your grass. That's fine, but don't come asking for sugar at my house 'cause you ain't Beyonce.

Twitter's biggest mistake was hiring thousands of people when they only needed 30. It doesn't need thousands of people. It doesn't even need 100.

Twitter is not a technological marvel. It's something Oprah promoted, and Donald Trump bitches on.

And now, it's an API with a (social) class-based access, and without irony, also promotes itself as a leader in conversation and exchange.

Steve Gutenberg would differ in opinion.

It's important to understand that Facebook is incredibly large, and the fact that any software scaled with them to the point they are presently at, is a "on the shoulders of giants" situation that seems to actually be working well enough for them to become a billion dollar enterprise.

Also, the building of infrastructure that takes on scale that's not yet been required is somewhat inefficient. But it does beg the question: If Facebook is limited by its infrastructure, what responsibilities do they have to build software that continues to scale for future organizations?

I love things like this, but I find I have about 30 of these sorts of things bookmarked, and I never think to pull them up when I'm in need – I immediately go to Google and find something like the Mozilla ref @shpx mentioned. It's a real problem I wish there was a solution for. Other than of course having a better memory.

>> Were those not acquisitions that withered as opposed to Dropbox new product ventures?

This is one of those distinctions without a difference.

When Obama says that Snowden created serious security implications, do you think that's from a point of privilege, or simply placing ideology over practicality? Based on everything I know, both Obama and Snowden appear to be fairly authentic characters. It seems weird that they would have opposing view points. If we're to assume the best ideals are forged though intelligent reasoning and debate, shouldn't they have both concluded the same? Glenn Greenwald has proven himself to be less than authentic at times. If I could pass a criticism Snowden's way, it was who he went to, not what he did. Am I wrong to feel this way?