gremy0

It's not, it's just a pretty standard and well understood UX principle; A couple of simple words is far more likely to be read than a long fluffy sentence. It's just a UX pattern.

It's like saying effective contrast is a dark pattern.

This again misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm arguing for background checks that allow employers to make reasonable decisions based on those checks show. and then act within the normal confines of employment law.

I've been through background checks for business, I'll probably have more in the future. They are extremely intrusive and uncomfortable, but I don't have a problem with them, because they are pertinent to the business, and conducted by professionals that are accountable for what they say about me and what they do with my information.

Google combined with any tosser that can put up a their side of a story on the internet is no substitution for a background check. This is a joke. People hitting the front page of google with my name are accountable to no-one. They aren't required to notify me, nevermind ask my permission to gather this information. They have no incentive to report back clear unbiased information

By conducting background research this way you sow distrust. It is not mutually consensual, controllable or fair. I wouldn't go near a company that was doing this without very good reasons. I have no problem with the EU making it difficult to abuse search tools in this way.

You misunderstand, I'm saying there are fair and professional ways to find out if someone is trustworthy. Googling their name, and finding some 5 year old article is not one of these. It presents a incomplete picture that is biased towards attention grabbing material from for-profit media. Use proper background checks and references.

There are also fair ways to deal with criminals, and staff you may not trust. Using google results as the bases of randomly deducting pay, removing employment rights, and other discriminatory acts, is not one of these. It would be far too easy for employers to abuse and doesn't lend itself to the employee having stability. This would just increase the chances of the employee returning to crime.

If your criminal record is truly relevant to the job, then the employer should do the responsible thing and get a proper background check done. Which are factual and non-biased. Such things shouldn't be left up to google page ranking algorithms and media that tends toward sensationalisation. It's lazy and unprofessional.

> Why would they hire mark over a similar employee with a clean record?

Is it useful to have people with a history of low level crime habitually unemployable. Don't we want to reduce crime.

> Mark needs to be given the opportunity to demonstrate to an employer hes no longer a cookie monster.

Mark is innocent of further crimes until he is convicted and the employer would need to have reasonable cause to discriminate against him. We have parole and other such mechanisms where official bodies can decide how long a person needs to speed demonstrating they are no longer a criminal, and make sure the relevant people are aware of this. Why leave it up to some random employer armed with google.

> He would do this by taking a lower than average pay,

Why does he deserve lower pay. This is just enabling employers to take advantage of vulnerable people.

> and giving the employer the option to terminate his employment at any time without cause.

The employer has the right to terminate at any time for mark committing a criminal act. He doesn't need this. Plus this is europe and workers have rights

hmm, I put your "plainest" language answer into XKCD simple writer, and there was some complexity in there.

In most simple language, the space truck was thrown up, not tossed forward, and this caused a sound wave that was followed with some interesting events in one of the high bits of the sky, between the space truck refuse air and the hotter-than-air stuff in the high sky, all of which need further study because of possible bad things like how true your sky-computer computer-map might be in the area around the "hole" caused by these waves.

> Each site is represented in the map as a screenshot,

and

> The Dark Web Map contains uncensored content from thousands of dark web sites.

You thought the (onion) hostnames would be considered uncensored content? and that this required a disclaimer?

and

> These sites include mature and/or offensive content, including pornography, violence, and racism.

and

> By clicking the "Accept" button, you are affirming that you are at least 18 years old and accept all responsibility for viewing this content.

* ES6

makes note: not normal programming material

You can do STEM outside and with your friends. There's quite a bit of science outside.

It puts the timer in the favicon so you can see it as a tab or bookmark icon.

I guess if you do the exercise first you actively know what information you need. So you can skip the content that's irrelevant and the stuff you know well enough already.

> For car width, I think that that's also a pretty reasonable width, since it's the perfect width to fit two people side-by-side comfortably, with a bit of room in the middle.

How do you know the width of a standard human isn't determined by 2000 years of people choosing partners that would fit beside them on a cart comfortably.

Additionally, if you needed something that did need persisted you would hopefully have the wit to send it on another service (e.g. email) so automatic filtering for all recipients.

You are very probably right the simple solution makes sense. It is an interesting optimization to be able to make though.

Also worth noting that content creators have caught on to this already and are tailoring videos be without sound. There's defiantly a facebook style of video emerging that would look out of place on more traditional video hosts.

2% of a bazillions of dollars is still like nearly a bazillion dollars.

I really don't think the point of the stream is to provide simple way consume T&Cs, more the opposite really.

SharePoint and !important together is like a nuclear standoff of perfect evil in balance.

I don't really get the Ease vs Simple section, what point is he trying to make?

This is simple:

  i  = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );

Where this is just easy:

  famework.authService.login('user','password')

Good article though.

I don't see why, it would just look silly if it was framed that way for anything else.

"Mathematicians make a lot of money! Everyone should learn to count!"

"Authors make a lot of money! Everyone should learn to write!"

"Cartographers make a lot of money! Everyone should learn to read a map!"

"Micheal Phelps got a lot of Olympic gold medals! Everyone should learn to swim!"

Well what's your website then and I'll judge it. Either that or refine your argument.

I'm not picking through all that hyperbole and condemnation of every dev that isn't you to try a maintain a reasonable argument.

So I go with a "those in glass houses" approach:

The only reason I can't see the terrible quality of your website's photos on my phone is that all the content is so damn small and zoomed out I can barely make out the text never-mind the picture pixels. I don't really want to zoom in because the shade of lime green you've chosen is so jarring it'll likely give me a migraine if it fills the screen.

So a third of users at least test Bing voice before searching for a different browser?

Apart from greediness there is no reason for data to be so expensive...

Sure there's always room for an amount of optimization and good practice but it's insane to rely on that instead of fixing the problem. The growth in page size has been fairly linear and predictable.

The real headline here should be "German and US carriers cannot keep up with natural growth in technology"

Most of Asia and Europe. The American plans are so expensive and restrictive they don't reflect the current state of the technology at all. That's what's causing all this 'crisis' scaremongering. 1GB is a fairly basic plan over here and for that you can expect to have to watch your usage.

It's quiet inconsiderate to tell developers to optimize for outdated bandwidth caps (which for some may be extra time, cost etc that they don't have).

You should expect to have to increase you dataplan every few years (because technology) whether that cost is absorbed by you or your phone company is a conversation to have with them.

Mobile-first is designing for a mobile interface. I quiet clearly stated "economise to the scale of mobile data". That is, supporting users on heavy mobile data restrictions.

Users, regardless of device used, are primarily on wifi and that is what is designed for. In modern countries most users don't really have data restrictions low enough to come into effect through websites so going into the future this will not be a problem.

Yeah 500 MB could be enough if technology regressed (which it isn't going to). You're going to need a bigger plan regardless as 500 MB is nothing and mobile internet features are become more rich and ubiquitous.

The growth of website size has been fairly steady, if anything the growth has flattened over the last year or so. It is up to the infrastructure to keep up with that.

In the last year or two we've had the introduction 4G with 2-4 times the speed of 3G and you expect to have the same usage allowance?

Actual figures on the 'crisis'

http://www.httparchive.org/interesting.php?a=All&l=Apr%201%2...

Average of 2.3MB with 60% of that being images. 50% of that content can be cached for a least a day.

That's a problem with your phone company not websites, 500MB really isn't enough for using the modern web.

Also since when exactly did websites have a mandate to economise to the scale of mobile data? It's always been edge case unless you are specifically targeting that.

I don't think any 'dedicated sailor' is silly enough to choose their next job based on the name of the boat.