No, the solution is to eat better. Eating less of the same shitty imbalanced diet still triggers your body to store everything it can, since lacking nutrition is a biological warning of food scarcity.
If you spending 30 minutes reading the manual would save a few hundred from injury, that would be a valid argument. When it is several thousand who must spend 30 minutes each reading the manual, translating to several thousand man-hours, to save the same few hundred, it just seems a waste. That said, most people do pull out the manual for the obviously new features of their new vehicle; this is designed to look and feel like the exact same shit lever everyone already knows, thus not obviously new and not triggering a manual reference. That's bad UI design, plain and simple; you always make the thing that behaves differently look different.
No, the correct way to do it is to leave their cheese exactly where the fuck it's always been, but put some better, tastier cheese somewhere else and direct them to it. Eventually, they'll abandon their old cheese and then (and only then) can you remove it, or they'll keep with their old cheese and you can remove the new. You never take the cheese they're eating, lest they bite your hand.
Yes, it uses those presses to shift between gears while still using a lever to shift between drive modes. The lever being discussed here behaves in the same manner as the paddle, but to cycle between drive modes, rather than gears.
Oh, but they can and, when ad blockers become the norm (which is rapidly happening), they'll have to. And trusting online publishers will be no worse than trusting publishers of traditional media; you either pay for the ad and get something or you don't and get nothing.
Actually, you know what? I think ad-blocker-blocking is the perfect solution. Ignore anything I've posted on the subject un to now, I've given it much more thought now, in light of what you just said and I have the following to say:
When a radio ad (which can't be skipped) gets too annoying, listeners change the station; when a TV ad (which can't be skipped) gets too annoying, viewers change the channel; when a print ad (which can't be skipped) gets too annoying, readers cancel their subscriptions. Once we can no longer view sites while using ad blockers, what do you think will happen? The same damn thing.
While it is true that the first ad blocker was created in response to pop-up and pop-under ads, which themselves were created to stand out from banner and text ads, it is also true that the very existence of that ad blocker interfered with the natural process by which radio, TV, and print ads are forced to self-moderate. People, being able to still view the content without the ads, did not abandon the content on account of the annoying and often malicious advertising and, while ad blocker users may not, themselves, be a revenue stream for these publishers, their sharing (often with people who don't use ad blockers) is, so online publishers never had the same incentive ti police their sponsors the same way as traditional media.
Once ad blocking becomes too difficult, should that ever happen, that all changes. Ad blocker users will stop viewing and, therefore, sharing content backed by annoying, obtrusive, or malicious advertising and publishers will feel this and either falter or begin policing.
I suppose it depends on how you define "isolated". For example, cloning the page to a private container after rendering, but prior to execution the script, and executing the script on that clone, would allow the script to phone home, while giving each affected page its own context for the concerns of advertising and tracking. Since the script runs in a page that will never be rendered to screen, the user never sees the ads; and any tracking is rendered null by the throw-away user context.
Publishers will respond by loading (at least a portion of) the content via the ad script, so the content ends up loaded in the throw-away non-rendering session. Ad blockers will respond by filtering the newly-added content in that session and rendering it to the real version of the page. I'm not sure what the next step for publishers will be, as I can't poke any holes in that at this time; mind you I haven't really given it that much thought, but I do know the blockers will be quick to solve that next issue, and any that follow.
Hell, I used to subscribe to their print edition and that only cost me $12/mo. No way in hell I'm paying more than that for something that costs them so much less to produce and distribute.
I block ads everywhere. If a site doesn't offer an option to pay to block the ads, I use an ad blocker. If a site insists that I either disable the ad blocker or pay, I block the content as well as the ads (by leaving the site). As long as I can still view the content with the ad blocker enabled, though, I'm willing to pay; this is in no small part because I've found that there is a strong negative correlation between quality of content and the type of greed that results in blocking ad blockers. Sites with content worth viewing don't have to play that game because their users want them to still be there tomorrow.
The thing is, without Apple, Tim Cook is a nobody.
Without Steve Jobs, Apple is nothing.
You know, I despised the man when he was alive, but Apple products were usable under Jobs and that usability has been eroded with every update and release since his departure. Even the staunchest Apple supporters I know are starting to admit this (by way of starting the conversation themselves, not "agreeing" with me to shut me up).
But, how can I say Apple is nothing when they're the 2nd most valuable company in the world? They fell pretty far to get there; think of them as the safe you keep all of your valuables in and never open. Until you actually look, that safe is everything; once you open it, though...
That's pretty much how each and every one of the shithole ad networks we have today started. "Don't worry, we only offer well-vetted ads from top-tier brands." And it was true, for a week or two.
The only difference with your "process" is that ads would be served directly from the publisher's servers; they'd still end up the same shit-mess we have today once the concept was "proven" and publishers took their eyes off those ad spots for two seconds.
How does it work for the top 1000 print publications? I'm pretty sure there is no ad exchange in the print world and each publication is approving, proofing, and setting those ads for print. Even if there is some sort of ad exchange in place, each publication is still approving, proofing, and setting those ads for print. Why can't online publications do the same? Again, even with an ad exchange, require the publishers to approve, proof, and "set" (in this case, by checking a box) the ads that display on their sites. Make the publishers responsible for the content they publish.
I was going to say "take responsibility for the content displayed on their site and either offer free malware abatement and disaster recovery services when one of their readers is infected by their ads, or control the ad content so that is not necessary". I like your wording better.
Now that explanation makes sense. We're still relying on external equipment to function per the spec, though, and actually have overcurrent protection; we're also hoping that said protection activates before our equipment is destroyed. And it's still the much less likely scenario, compared to overvoltage, which is more difficult to protect against; if that's not being handled, it still doesn't make sense to handle reverse voltage.
I'll add to this by suggesting, for a moment, that we pretend that Cortana is actually a real woman and not simply a computer program. If the only way she can be taken seriously is through social codification, saying that she should be taken seriously because she is a woman and it is sexist not to take her seriously, what kind of a win is that for women? Hoe is it not sexist to say a woman must be taken seriously, rather than allowing the same measure of seriousness that is applied to me to be applied to women? Provided that some measure other than penis length is used, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that; and, then, we are free to ask Cortana, the computer program, whatever we want.
I'm not sure if you are trying to argue, or agree and expand. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume you're simply expanding on my points. I'll also clarify, for the benefit of those reading along.
It is absolutely false that GitHug benefits in any way from encouraging people to use them as a central repository; in fact, as evident by the discussion happening here, people using their service (incorrectly) as a central repository has a direct negative impact on GitHub every time the service goes down and those users start bitching that they can't get any work done due to the outage. That said, I do agree that they don't emphasize the correct way to use their service, as an additional home for your repo, which brings a number of additional features. This is something they can, and should, certainly work on.
I also never said, or even implied, that GitHub should get a pass on the stability of their service, let alone on account of features Git natively brings to the table. I merely pointed out that they built a fair bit upon those features, adding many of their own; if you only view GitHub as a place to host Git repos, you're missing the bigger picture by a mile. Additionally, it is worth noting that GitHub Releases, which some projects use to host builds, are being used incorrectly by those projects. All a Release is supposed to be is a tag, pointing to a specific revision of the source, that GitHub lists on the Releases page.
The problem is that people are using GitHub incorrectly, the complaining when the service goes down, not because they lose access to the additional features GitHub offers, but because they lose access to things that should live elsewhere in the first place. If I was hearing complaints about the temporary loss of GitHub's additional features, I'd consider those complaints valid. But complaining about bad things happening when you misuse a service? Come on.
Give them valid criticisms where they are deserved, there's plenty to talk about there; likewise, when it is pointed out that you are misusing your tools, accept that criticism yourself and become a better developer for it. There is no need, not benefit to anyone (yourself included), to blame GitHub for your misuse and misunderstanding of their service.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a parking brake. Break is what happens to the transmission's parking pawl when someone bumps into your improperly parked automatic.
No, the solution is to eat better. Eating less of the same shitty imbalanced diet still triggers your body to store everything it can, since lacking nutrition is a biological warning of food scarcity.
If you spending 30 minutes reading the manual would save a few hundred from injury, that would be a valid argument. When it is several thousand who must spend 30 minutes each reading the manual, translating to several thousand man-hours, to save the same few hundred, it just seems a waste. That said, most people do pull out the manual for the obviously new features of their new vehicle; this is designed to look and feel like the exact same shit lever everyone already knows, thus not obviously new and not triggering a manual reference. That's bad UI design, plain and simple; you always make the thing that behaves differently look different.
No, the correct way to do it is to leave their cheese exactly where the fuck it's always been, but put some better, tastier cheese somewhere else and direct them to it. Eventually, they'll abandon their old cheese and then (and only then) can you remove it, or they'll keep with their old cheese and you can remove the new. You never take the cheese they're eating, lest they bite your hand.
Yes, it uses those presses to shift between gears while still using a lever to shift between drive modes. The lever being discussed here behaves in the same manner as the paddle, but to cycle between drive modes, rather than gears.
Oh, but they can and, when ad blockers become the norm (which is rapidly happening), they'll have to. And trusting online publishers will be no worse than trusting publishers of traditional media; you either pay for the ad and get something or you don't and get nothing.
Actually, you know what? I think ad-blocker-blocking is the perfect solution. Ignore anything I've posted on the subject un to now, I've given it much more thought now, in light of what you just said and I have the following to say:
When a radio ad (which can't be skipped) gets too annoying, listeners change the station; when a TV ad (which can't be skipped) gets too annoying, viewers change the channel; when a print ad (which can't be skipped) gets too annoying, readers cancel their subscriptions. Once we can no longer view sites while using ad blockers, what do you think will happen? The same damn thing.
While it is true that the first ad blocker was created in response to pop-up and pop-under ads, which themselves were created to stand out from banner and text ads, it is also true that the very existence of that ad blocker interfered with the natural process by which radio, TV, and print ads are forced to self-moderate. People, being able to still view the content without the ads, did not abandon the content on account of the annoying and often malicious advertising and, while ad blocker users may not, themselves, be a revenue stream for these publishers, their sharing (often with people who don't use ad blockers) is, so online publishers never had the same incentive ti police their sponsors the same way as traditional media.
Once ad blocking becomes too difficult, should that ever happen, that all changes. Ad blocker users will stop viewing and, therefore, sharing content backed by annoying, obtrusive, or malicious advertising and publishers will feel this and either falter or begin policing.
I suppose it depends on how you define "isolated". For example, cloning the page to a private container after rendering, but prior to execution the script, and executing the script on that clone, would allow the script to phone home, while giving each affected page its own context for the concerns of advertising and tracking. Since the script runs in a page that will never be rendered to screen, the user never sees the ads; and any tracking is rendered null by the throw-away user context.
Publishers will respond by loading (at least a portion of) the content via the ad script, so the content ends up loaded in the throw-away non-rendering session. Ad blockers will respond by filtering the newly-added content in that session and rendering it to the real version of the page. I'm not sure what the next step for publishers will be, as I can't poke any holes in that at this time; mind you I haven't really given it that much thought, but I do know the blockers will be quick to solve that next issue, and any that follow.
Advertisers have no sense of sarcasm, stop giving them ideas.
If the script is blocked
That's were I got that from. He explicitly mentioned allowing the scripts to execute and simply not render the ad.
Bingo. And we outlawed the sale of people when Jefferson was in office.
Someone didn't read what they were replying to.
Hell, I used to subscribe to their print edition and that only cost me $12/mo. No way in hell I'm paying more than that for something that costs them so much less to produce and distribute.
I block ads everywhere. If a site doesn't offer an option to pay to block the ads, I use an ad blocker. If a site insists that I either disable the ad blocker or pay, I block the content as well as the ads (by leaving the site). As long as I can still view the content with the ad blocker enabled, though, I'm willing to pay; this is in no small part because I've found that there is a strong negative correlation between quality of content and the type of greed that results in blocking ad blockers. Sites with content worth viewing don't have to play that game because their users want them to still be there tomorrow.
The thing is, without Apple, Tim Cook is a nobody.
Without Steve Jobs, Apple is nothing.
You know, I despised the man when he was alive, but Apple products were usable under Jobs and that usability has been eroded with every update and release since his departure. Even the staunchest Apple supporters I know are starting to admit this (by way of starting the conversation themselves, not "agreeing" with me to shut me up).
But, how can I say Apple is nothing when they're the 2nd most valuable company in the world? They fell pretty far to get there; think of them as the safe you keep all of your valuables in and never open. Until you actually look, that safe is everything; once you open it, though...
That's pretty much how each and every one of the shithole ad networks we have today started. "Don't worry, we only offer well-vetted ads from top-tier brands." And it was true, for a week or two.
The only difference with your "process" is that ads would be served directly from the publisher's servers; they'd still end up the same shit-mess we have today once the concept was "proven" and publishers took their eyes off those ad spots for two seconds.
How does it work for the top 1000 print publications? I'm pretty sure there is no ad exchange in the print world and each publication is approving, proofing, and setting those ads for print. Even if there is some sort of ad exchange in place, each publication is still approving, proofing, and setting those ads for print. Why can't online publications do the same? Again, even with an ad exchange, require the publishers to approve, proof, and "set" (in this case, by checking a box) the ads that display on their sites. Make the publishers responsible for the content they publish.
I was going to say "take responsibility for the content displayed on their site and either offer free malware abatement and disaster recovery services when one of their readers is infected by their ads, or control the ad content so that is not necessary". I like your wording better.
And on that day, the people of Slashtonville witnessed their first +6 post.
Now that explanation makes sense. We're still relying on external equipment to function per the spec, though, and actually have overcurrent protection; we're also hoping that said protection activates before our equipment is destroyed. And it's still the much less likely scenario, compared to overvoltage, which is more difficult to protect against; if that's not being handled, it still doesn't make sense to handle reverse voltage.
Ironic typo... and I'm sure I'm gonna be called out as sexist for it. The first word of the 3d sentence should be "How".
I'll add to this by suggesting, for a moment, that we pretend that Cortana is actually a real woman and not simply a computer program. If the only way she can be taken seriously is through social codification, saying that she should be taken seriously because she is a woman and it is sexist not to take her seriously, what kind of a win is that for women? Hoe is it not sexist to say a woman must be taken seriously, rather than allowing the same measure of seriousness that is applied to me to be applied to women? Provided that some measure other than penis length is used, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that; and, then, we are free to ask Cortana, the computer program, whatever we want.
Keep your PC bullshit to yourselves.
So, use a Mac?
I'm not sure if you are trying to argue, or agree and expand. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume you're simply expanding on my points. I'll also clarify, for the benefit of those reading along.
It is absolutely false that GitHug benefits in any way from encouraging people to use them as a central repository; in fact, as evident by the discussion happening here, people using their service (incorrectly) as a central repository has a direct negative impact on GitHub every time the service goes down and those users start bitching that they can't get any work done due to the outage. That said, I do agree that they don't emphasize the correct way to use their service, as an additional home for your repo, which brings a number of additional features. This is something they can, and should, certainly work on.
I also never said, or even implied, that GitHub should get a pass on the stability of their service, let alone on account of features Git natively brings to the table. I merely pointed out that they built a fair bit upon those features, adding many of their own; if you only view GitHub as a place to host Git repos, you're missing the bigger picture by a mile. Additionally, it is worth noting that GitHub Releases, which some projects use to host builds, are being used incorrectly by those projects. All a Release is supposed to be is a tag, pointing to a specific revision of the source, that GitHub lists on the Releases page.
The problem is that people are using GitHub incorrectly, the complaining when the service goes down, not because they lose access to the additional features GitHub offers, but because they lose access to things that should live elsewhere in the first place. If I was hearing complaints about the temporary loss of GitHub's additional features, I'd consider those complaints valid. But complaining about bad things happening when you misuse a service? Come on.
Give them valid criticisms where they are deserved, there's plenty to talk about there; likewise, when it is pointed out that you are misusing your tools, accept that criticism yourself and become a better developer for it. There is no need, not benefit to anyone (yourself included), to blame GitHub for your misuse and misunderstanding of their service.
This. Oh, so so so much this.
GitHub makes some things easier. If GitHub being down makes some things impossible for you, you're using it wrong.