My assumption is that doing what google has suggested will improve the mobile web page, but you seem to think that it is perfect the way it is and needs no change. Obviously it is impossible for either of us to know the truth. And we might disagree on this even if we knew what site it is referring to.
There is no indication given whether his mobile site needs or does not need to be "fixed for mobile". The argument is entirely AMP vs NOT AMP.
It seems to me that the things google suggest would improve the mobile experience. That is what I'm talking about. And for the item about social media, I would suggest removing it on both platforms. That would be a good privacy improvement, and make the two versions more coherent.
Google forces websites to either adopt AMP or forego large amounts of potential traffic.
It is not clear what effect it will have on page rank. The suggestion itself says "This issue will not affect your appearance on search". But I also think that a page that is easy to navigate and does not contain a lot of bloat SHOULD get higher ranking than a page with similar content but is hard to use and slow to load.
It's not vague. They enumerate 4 features that are present on the main page, but are missing on the mobile version. His argument is that there is more work to also fix it for mobile. That means he is choosing to create an inferior version because he doesn't want to do the work. That means he is a lazy developer. Which by the way does not mean he is a lazy person A lazy developer is someone who takes the easy way out instead of doing the right thing.. You can do that while still working your ass off.
I didn't say angry, but I stand by lazy and shitty websites. Obviously a bit exaggerated to make a point. The evidence are the screenshots he posted about his sites issues according to Google. (bad mobile version of his website) And the whole article is there because it creates more work for him, and he does not want to do it.(lazy)
So by acknowledging it has issues but pointing out that parts of it is actually good for end users, that makes me a shill? Google's dominance is obviously a huge problem when they abuse it. But the solution is not to keep making shitty bloated websites.
Sites with "interesting design" NEVER have a focus on content.
When you have a focus on content your site will end up exactly like an AMP page. Fast loading and easy to navigate. Slow loading bloat is only ever present because of intrusive ads and tracking scripts.
I bet Google crawlers love it when a web page is small, fast to load, and easy to navigate. But do you know who else likes that? HUMANS like that too!
I get that there are some legitimate issues with AMP, but this sounds a bit like the guy in one of the linked articles is annoyed that Google wants him to stop making shitty websites and he doesn't like it at all because it creates more work for him.
Your comment started out pretty interesting, but I stopped reading when I saw "free speech" in quotes so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make...
The time to know if it is crap is half an hour, but the time to know if it is really good is many hours for a TV show. A series that starts promising can turn to shit 14 hours in to the first season. And for a review to be of any real value you should have seen quite a lot of it before reviewing. And since it is easy to dismiss shows after the first episode I think reviews are skewed to be made by fans rather than the average population. This leads to scores that are way too high for many TV shows. This is why the imdb score for a TV show is useless.
This is also why the author has everything backwards. While we are indeed in a golden age of television, it is in no way as good as imdb scores would imply. And that's why nobody cares about about it.
Since casino and slot machine developers have been doing this for decades it's obvious it would happen to regular games too. Not only is it expected; once pay to play entered the arena it was completely unavoidable that someone with complete knowledge of all relevant gaming metrics would not figure this out.
> When you "cast" from Netflix to Chromecast, your Chromecast streams from Netflix and not the device that initiated it.
But before you are even allowed to start the netflix app on the CC it does a lot of different checks to verify that you are connected to the internet. Probably one of the servers they try to contact to do this has some problems.
One of the fundamental problems with dating sites is that it is not financially good for them if you find someone. That is a lost customer. Their highest revenue will be when you don't find someone serious, but it still looks like you have a chance. That is how you stay a customer the longest.
If they display ads it is also important to get as many page views as possible. There are many ways that dating sites could be improved, but most of them would involve creating less activity, i.e. less income from ads.
Examples: Popular people (mostly women) get too many low effort messages. They want to receive less bad messages, but less activity is bad for business. Unpopular people (mostly men) send too many messages that get no response. Some transparency like stats for the other persons response rate could help the user here. But if we only message the people where we have a chance of getting noticed, that means less page views, i.e. it is bad for business.
All this extra activity that is good for business but bad for the user, that is why we get services like these paid impersonators.
"We" is whoever wants something done. That is no different from today.
Value is created mostly by machines. This is to a large extent true already, but even more so in the future. That value needs to go to both UBI and to the few people working. Obviously the owners also needs to get a part of that value, but probably a smaller cut than they do today.
how much data do you need to keep on someone so that you know you should not collect data on them
NONE. Unless you have an entry in your database saying "this user has agreed to have it's data collected", you should not be collecting that data. It's as simple as that!
I think there are systems today with automatic "physical" electric safeguards. Like if two trains occupy the same segment of the tracks it will cause a short circuit and cut the engines of the train behind.
You can very well have a Software Development Environment without having an Integrated Development Environment. GCC + a crappy text editor is a SDE, but it most definitely is not an IDE.
I guess an interactive python interpreter and nothing more could also be considered an SDE but not an IDE
Almost everyone in Sweden has Swish (Swedish link) now that handles instant money transfers from your mobile device. It's tied to your phone number, so if you know someones number it's easy to send them money without knowing their real bank account number. This is probably the most common way to transfer small amounts of money where cash used to rule supreme.
Almost all charity organizations will accept swish payments if you don't have cash.
Swish is also increasingly accepted as payment in smaller convenience stores where a lot of sales are for small amounts where credit cards are prohibitively expensive.
It's not like a 2 year release cycle would mean 1 year of developing the same features, followed by 1 year of beta testing.
It would only mean 2 years of developing more new features followed by 6 months of patches instead of the 4 months of patches we get today.
What is needed is more focus on testing, and less focus on new "features" that most people don't even want!
I'm not sure it is a whole lot easier to opt out of dealing with some corporations.
Take Facebook or Google. Making sure you are not tracked by them is no easy task today. Everything on the internet has some script from some of the big internet companies.
Another difference is that there is a small chance the government actually has your best interest in mind. With a big corporation that chance is exactly zero, unless it happens to align with their own interests. With small businesses you have a better chance that it is run by someone who cares about you, but never with the gigantic global corporations.
The article is lacking some technical details, but it mentions there is not going to be an exchange in the normal sense.
Then it looks a lot like someone putting his dollar bills in a shredder, then flying to Germany and claiming the ECB should print him Euros because he destroyed his dollars.
Obviously I missed something here. Can someone explain what?
Are you suggesting that the concept of property doesn't apply specifically to water
In many cases water is a shared resource, so if you pump water from a well on your property it may very well reduce the supply of your neighbors.
So at least there are some cases where you should not be able to do whatever you want with water.
Slashdot Mirror
My assumption is that doing what google has suggested will improve the mobile web page, but you seem to think that it is perfect the way it is and needs no change. Obviously it is impossible for either of us to know the truth. And we might disagree on this even if we knew what site it is referring to.
There is no indication given whether his mobile site needs or does not need to be "fixed for mobile". The argument is entirely AMP vs NOT AMP.
It seems to me that the things google suggest would improve the mobile experience. That is what I'm talking about.
And for the item about social media, I would suggest removing it on both platforms. That would be a good privacy improvement, and make the two versions more coherent.
Google forces websites to either adopt AMP or forego large amounts of potential traffic.
It is not clear what effect it will have on page rank. The suggestion itself says "This issue will not affect your appearance on search".
But I also think that a page that is easy to navigate and does not contain a lot of bloat SHOULD get higher ranking than a page with similar content but is hard to use and slow to load.
It's not vague. They enumerate 4 features that are present on the main page, but are missing on the mobile version.
His argument is that there is more work to also fix it for mobile. That means he is choosing to create an inferior version because he doesn't want to do the work. That means he is a lazy developer. Which by the way does not mean he is a lazy person
A lazy developer is someone who takes the easy way out instead of doing the right thing.. You can do that while still working your ass off.
I didn't say angry, but I stand by lazy and shitty websites. Obviously a bit exaggerated to make a point.
The evidence are the screenshots he posted about his sites issues according to Google. (bad mobile version of his website)
And the whole article is there because it creates more work for him, and he does not want to do it.(lazy)
So by acknowledging it has issues but pointing out that parts of it is actually good for end users, that makes me a shill?
Google's dominance is obviously a huge problem when they abuse it. But the solution is not to keep making shitty bloated websites.
Sites with "interesting design" NEVER have a focus on content.
When you have a focus on content your site will end up exactly like an AMP page. Fast loading and easy to navigate.
Slow loading bloat is only ever present because of intrusive ads and tracking scripts.
I would love to have Google give lower rankings for desktop sites full of bloated slow loading crap too.
I bet Google crawlers love it when a web page is small, fast to load, and easy to navigate.
But do you know who else likes that? HUMANS like that too!
I get that there are some legitimate issues with AMP, but this sounds a bit like the guy in one of the linked articles is annoyed that Google wants him to stop making shitty websites and he doesn't like it at all because it creates more work for him.
Your comment started out pretty interesting, but I stopped reading when I saw "free speech" in quotes so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make...
Amazing coincidence that it happened to the time when you were young...
The time to know if it is crap is half an hour, but the time to know if it is really good is many hours for a TV show. A series that starts promising can turn to shit 14 hours in to the first season.
And for a review to be of any real value you should have seen quite a lot of it before reviewing. And since it is easy to dismiss shows after the first episode I think reviews are skewed to be made by fans rather than the average population. This leads to scores that are way too high for many TV shows. This is why the imdb score for a TV show is useless.
This is also why the author has everything backwards. While we are indeed in a golden age of television, it is in no way as good as imdb scores would imply. And that's why nobody cares about about it.
Since casino and slot machine developers have been doing this for decades it's obvious it would happen to regular games too.
Not only is it expected; once pay to play entered the arena it was completely unavoidable that someone with complete knowledge of all relevant gaming metrics would not figure this out.
... no accountability.
> When you "cast" from Netflix to Chromecast, your Chromecast streams from Netflix and not the device that initiated it.
But before you are even allowed to start the netflix app on the CC it does a lot of different checks to verify that you are connected to the internet. Probably one of the servers they try to contact to do this has some problems.
One of the fundamental problems with dating sites is that it is not financially good for them if you find someone. That is a lost customer. Their highest revenue will be when you don't find someone serious, but it still looks like you have a chance. That is how you stay a customer the longest.
If they display ads it is also important to get as many page views as possible. There are many ways that dating sites could be improved, but most of them would involve creating less activity, i.e. less income from ads.
Examples:
Popular people (mostly women) get too many low effort messages. They want to receive less bad messages, but less activity is bad for business.
Unpopular people (mostly men) send too many messages that get no response. Some transparency like stats for the other persons response rate could help the user here. But if we only message the people where we have a chance of getting noticed, that means less page views, i.e. it is bad for business.
All this extra activity that is good for business but bad for the user, that is why we get services like these paid impersonators.
"We" is whoever wants something done. That is no different from today.
Value is created mostly by machines. This is to a large extent true already, but even more so in the future. That value needs to go to both UBI and to the few people working. Obviously the owners also needs to get a part of that value, but probably a smaller cut than they do today.
Because if you don't work, then someone else has to work for you, against their will.
I have an idea. A bit of a revolutionary concept perhaps, but hear me out: We pay people enough, so they want to work.
There are always going to be people that want more than what you can afford on your UBI. We pay those people to do the few jobs that are needed.
how much data do you need to keep on someone so that you know you should not collect data on them
NONE.
Unless you have an entry in your database saying "this user has agreed to have it's data collected", you should not be collecting that data. It's as simple as that!
I think there are systems today with automatic "physical" electric safeguards.
Like if two trains occupy the same segment of the tracks it will cause a short circuit and cut the engines of the train behind.
You can very well have a Software Development Environment without having an Integrated Development Environment.
GCC + a crappy text editor is a SDE, but it most definitely is not an IDE.
I guess an interactive python interpreter and nothing more could also be considered an SDE but not an IDE
The important question is, why can't we have this on high-end devices?
I'm sure a lot of people would prefer a simple OS over the normal "bloat edition", even if they have good hardware.
Almost everyone in Sweden has Swish (Swedish link) now that handles instant money transfers from your mobile device.
It's tied to your phone number, so if you know someones number it's easy to send them money without knowing their real bank account number. This is probably the most common way to transfer small amounts of money where cash used to rule supreme.
Almost all charity organizations will accept swish payments if you don't have cash.
Swish is also increasingly accepted as payment in smaller convenience stores where a lot of sales are for small amounts where credit cards are prohibitively expensive.
It's not like a 2 year release cycle would mean 1 year of developing the same features, followed by 1 year of beta testing.
It would only mean 2 years of developing more new features followed by 6 months of patches instead of the 4 months of patches we get today.
What is needed is more focus on testing, and less focus on new "features" that most people don't even want!
I'm not sure it is a whole lot easier to opt out of dealing with some corporations.
Take Facebook or Google. Making sure you are not tracked by them is no easy task today. Everything on the internet has some script from some of the big internet companies.
Another difference is that there is a small chance the government actually has your best interest in mind. With a big corporation that chance is exactly zero, unless it happens to align with their own interests. With small businesses you have a better chance that it is run by someone who cares about you, but never with the gigantic global corporations.
The article is lacking some technical details, but it mentions there is not going to be an exchange in the normal sense.
Then it looks a lot like someone putting his dollar bills in a shredder, then flying to Germany and claiming the ECB should print him Euros because he destroyed his dollars.
Obviously I missed something here. Can someone explain what?
Are you suggesting that the concept of property doesn't apply specifically to water
In many cases water is a shared resource, so if you pump water from a well on your property it may very well reduce the supply of your neighbors.
So at least there are some cases where you should not be able to do whatever you want with water.