fuzionmonkey

Nice work, it even has a deploy to Heroku button!

Honestly, I think it's pretty lame trying to profit from arbitrage on SW prices like that. $3 per alert? Really?

Great job making an OSS implementation.

I think you are conflating multiple things. There's several JS styling libraries have literally zero configuration (and don't involve build tooling, etc). They "just work" out of the box.

Plain pseudo classes are supported (e.g. :hover), but since descendant/child combinators aren't supported, a parent :hover can't change a child style. But any element can still have :hover styles.

At-cost version web version of this using Lob API: https://github.com/scott113341/post

For generated HTML docs or websites, this is still not ideal because you have to commit generated code into your master branch.

You can even use Travis to automatically generate and deploy your docs/website, which I find much cleaner and convenient than manually publishing or committing generated code.

https://github.com/L33T-KR3W/push-dir makes it easy to publish a directory to gh-pages (even .gitignored directories i.e. build/).

It's not a $7 billion "exit". It's an investment for a 20% stake in Didi for $7 billion, which presumably will increase in value as Didi continues to expand in China, especially with less need for ridiculous spending on driver incentives since they will no longer be competing with Uber.

Uber probably had something in the ballpark of 20% market share in China so it sounds like the two decided to simply make peace and become profitable together instead of duking it out for years on end and throwing away billions.

Didi and Uber have been raising outrageous amounts of money to outspend each other on driver incentives. Seems like a smart deal for both sides.

This is very similar to https://github.com/Khan/aphrodite and https://github.com/rtsao/react-stylematic

This is awesome. I've been using Electron for browser tests which has been a big improvement over Phantom, but setting up xvfb can be a pain.

I actually don't like this change.

Private contributions don't benefit the greater community unless the project is eventually open sourced.

The contribution graph was a nice way to show off how much one contributes to open source, thereby encouraging folks to contribute to open source projects. It's a vanity metric in the first place, so why not use it to help motivate more contributions to open source software?

Launch blog post: http://horizon.io/blog/horizon-launch/

Non-blogspam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e-Po9C8Kj8

This user has been doing this repeatedly: https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=mgmsaji

This is simply not true. Many CSS-in-JS libraries support build or render-time extraction of CSS, which takes care of your first criterion.

Many CSS-in-JS libraries also handle style modularization, often in ways arguably better than CSS preprocessors. There's a lot of variety here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "faster than CSS". CSS can be fast or slow, depending on how the CSS is written.

You should take a look at: https://github.com/MicheleBertoli/css-in-js

A very comprehensive list of CSS-in-JS libraries with code examples is maintained here: https://github.com/MicheleBertoli/css-in-js for folks who are interested.

My personal favorite: https://github.com/rtsao/csjs

This is awesome! Just today I was looking for collaborative Markdown editor with nice previews/rendering.

There needs to be the ability to ability to add comments to documents, though. Without commenting, the "collaborative" aspect is severely limited.

Folks have been using React in production since way before version 0.12, which is when Facebook should have released version 1.0. Releasing 1.0 doesn't in any way limit your ability to make changes in the future. It does, however, allow for more nuanced semantic versioning with the full range of major, minor, and patch versions. This extremely is useful for both library authors and consumers.

Better late than never, I suppose, but I just don't understand the pointless sentiment that results in waiting to release a fabled "1.0" release.

I prefer browserify because of its emphasis on node compatibility, first and foremost. I think this narrower scope is a strength because as a result, browserify is super simple to use, works without config, and has a surprisingly small, readable implementation. Seriously, read the browserify source.

Cycle.js has the most elegant and powerful component composition mechanism of any JS framework I've ever used. With React you have to be extremely careful in how you design components to make them re-useable and flexible.

The inversion of control that happens with Cycle.js makes it really easy to compose components together. At first it feels weird to not manually specify event handlers (e.g. onClick) in DOM-generation code, but as a result there's much less embedded opinion on how the component be should be used. Instead each component simply returns a collection of queryable observables, which is extremely flexible and adaptable.

It's also cool how components have the exact same function signature as a full Cycle.js app, so you can think of your app as being composed of several mini-apps. It's very clear Cycle.js was designed with composability in mind from the start.

I hope the removal of the sidebar doesn't result in wider README views.

The current design has a fixed width of 790px (including 30px of padding on each side), which leads to a comfortable number of words per line. I find readability much worse when line lengths get longer.

Other than that, I think the simplified navigation is a big improvement.

React 0.14 is 132KB minified [1].

I wouldn't exactly consider React "lightweight," especially compared to other frameworks like Mercury [2], Mithril [3], and Riot [4], which are a fraction of the size of React but still have their own virtual DOM implementations.

[1] https://fb.me/react-0.14.0.min.js

[2] https://github.com/Raynos/mercury

[3] http://mithril.js.org

[4] http://riotjs.com/

One thing worth mentioning about class composition with CSS Modules is it allows for the convenient ergonomics of Sass's @extend without any of its problems.

Sass @extend is actually counterproductive in terms of reducing filesize [1] and results in unwieldy, unreadable CSS rules [2]. In contrast, CSS Modules achieves true class reusability and optimal de-duplication of styles in a manner impossible with Sass, resulting in a nice Chrome Inspector view because the original classes are preserved and their composition is naturally represented.

[1] https://tech.bellycard.com/blog/sass-mixins-vs-extends-the-d...

[2] http://pressupinc.com/blog/2014/11/dont-overextend-yourself-...

If you're interested in CSS in JS you should check out css-modules [1] and its Webpack [2] or Browserify implementation [3].

You get scoped, modular, composable, requirable CSS without the burden of doing styles in JS.

[1] https://github.com/css-modules/css-modules

[2] https://github.com/webpack/css-loader

[3] https://github.com/css-modules/css-modulesify

If this was due to a breach at Uber, it stands to reason there would be millions of accounts for sale, not merely thousands. I'm more inclined to believe this is a result of shared and/or weak passwords.

As a Portland native, I'd say there's nothing Portlanders love more than Portlandy things from Portland.

But in seriousness, I think it's fairly clear the whole obsession with the carpet was started by photos shared on Facebook and Instagram. People didn't used to take pictures of the carpet -- it was just a peculiar design that was recognizable but not necessarily noteworthy. I remember seeing PDX carpet photos with the classic "feet on ground" composition circulating Facebook several years ago and it has steadily spread since.

But the announcement of the carpet's eventual replacement really galvanized the phenomenon because it turned it into a news story and created a cottage industry for carpet memorabilia. I think the whole thing is hilarious.

See: https://github.com/dominictarr/hyperscript