I've tried to use Bing as my default search engine in moments of frustration but always go back to Google. The main reason is UI. Bing has too much fancy JavaScript that slows it down and confuses me ever so slightly, and the information is a little harder to scan, perhaps because of familiarity with Google.
This is pretty, but unfortunately the only performant way to generate dom elements in javascript is with HTML. HTML parsing is orders of magnitude faster in most browsers.
How about a library like this to generate a string of HTML instead of dom elements?
I tried that some years ago (see my other comment). I had a very similar DOM creation function and I updated it to generate HTML instead. It was almost as slow as before - and then I realized that the sheer amount of JS code I was running to generate the HTML was taking up the time.
Of course the performance tradeoff would be different in modern browsers.
My first statement was certainly true in the previous generation of browsers, including IE 7. I'm not sure about more modern browsers. What basis do you have for disagreeing?
I'm only disagreeing with the use of the word 'performant', and the popular viewpoint that any solution that isn't as fast as possible can't be labeled as such.
I started one in 2009 (https://github.com/dburrows/markup-builder) inspired by Ruby's Builder library but abandoned it - it was only really useful for small amounts of code and for any sizeable project it's far better to use templates
I developed http://www.cribq.com because at the time, both PadMapper (if it existed, can't remember - according to domain records padmapper.com was registered after CribQ launched) and HousingMaps were too simplistic and behind on listings to use. HousingMaps had no organizational tools - so I suppose PadMapper "ripped" that idea off of me? (CribQ website is not actively developed anymore, but the iPhone app is quite popular.)
Seriously, why does this accusation come up every time someone launches a site with housing listings on a map? Even if the site is similar, there is no shame in "ripping off" ideas - you will always do something different and hopefully better or useful in some way. If you manage to copy an idea and survive, you've either done a better job marketing or a better job building a product for some segment. Either way, we all win.
Developing a site that is an improvement, different take, or even a copy of another is not a ripoff. Is AirBNB a ripoff of VRBO? Is Google a ripoff of AltaVista? Is Gmail a ripoff of HotMail? Is TechStars a ripoff of YC? Facebook a ripoff of Friendster? You may not agree with their tactics in some cases, but generally the founders/creators have a vision that differs from the site they "ripped off" and have a reason for creating their own version. And would somebody PLEASE rip off Craigslist and win?
Copy away. Or as Steve Jobs says, "good artists copy, great artists steal."
It depends on how similar the implementation is. If someone clones all or most of another site's design decisions, I'd say that's not cool and is worthy of derision. There are sites that I would consider clones of PadMapper because they try to do things the same way without adding much new or providing a new take on the problem. That says to me that they didn't have much of a vision, and it's annoying - it seems unlikely that if they were re-deriving solutions to those problems that they'd come up with the same answers for everything.
For an example, see how different the results of our both tackling the same problems were - they barely resemble each other in form or functionality.
But yeah, the basic idea of showing real estate on a map is old, I have a research papers from the 80s that talks about making map-based search systems for real estate. housingmaps is the earliest web-based implementation of the idea that I know of, though, and was my inspiration.
I certainly don't think it's anyone's place to judge something as a "ripoff" versus "inspired." That is in the heart of the creator. And I think it's ridiculous to judge something on such an extreme binary scale - as either a soul-less copy or an inspired innovation.
Look at Android - it's a "ripoff" of iPhone, and copied much of the design and function. Except it's entirely different. It has created a new, more open and more dangerous ecosystem for applications. It has made iPhone-like functionality available to different markets and fulfilled different requirements. It has lighted the fire of competition under Apple.
While it may annoy you to have "copies" out there, I can guarantee you there was a reason those copies were developed. Nobody spends their hours reproducing existing functionally without some idea of how they will be better in product or distribution, regardless of their ultimate success. They may have been inspired by your work, but almost certainly they saw a need for something better in some way.
That last part is patently false. Many clones of software projects are developed entirely to get a piece of that other project's pie without any thought to being better, in the same way that Louis Vuitton counterfeits exist solely to capitalize on the design and brand cachet of the real thing.
On the contrary, I think there's a problem with a world where this can't happen. If it could not, there would not be incentives for shoot-for-the-moon ideas. There would not be the freedom to benefit from providing value to society. Grand innovation would be stifled in favor of "lifestyle" careers and businesses. While there is nothing wrong with most people taking smaller amounts of easy money for long term work (i.e. salary,) we all benefit from others who take large risks to improve our lives.
Further, much of that $78M will be recycled through the economy, some of it re-invested in the hopes of making similar returns.
The idea that because some prosper, others suffer, is a consequence of one of the most dangerous human emotions: jealousy. I agree that institutions should promote long term distribution of wealth through taxation and incentives. However windfalls for big thinkers and executers are extraordinary incentives for big thinking and executing, from which we all benefit.
"We price our domains at 25% of their market value."
Don't we all sell liquid commodities at 25% of market value? You know, because we like our customers and we don't like money? Can you feel the credibility chasm expand with that statement?
Much of this article is a reasonable point of view, but statements like this are a sure way to put my purchase clicker on the defensive.
I actually fully agree. I originally chose that copy to reflect how good our prices are relative to the "old guard" domain markets, but it's too unsubstantiated of a claim. I've replaced this copy with something better. Thanks for the constructive criticism.
While I disagree with a large number of TSA policies, I have found TSA officers to be thoroughly professional and nearly always courteous. The anti-TSA bandwagon on HN seems to be the product of people who don't travel much basing their opinions on a few rants or CNN coverage, or perhaps just general anti-authority bitterness.
I've flown at least once a month for 10 years, domestically and internationally, and almost never have a negative experience with TSA personel. While I hate taking off my shoes, turning off my phone, and find the liquid rules particularly ridiculous, I have found that TSA agents have more than met my expectations of professionalism in implementing policies over which they have no control.
Millions of people travel every day. A few bad encounters can be expected. Don't be an asshole and tear down the employees of the TSA because of a few anecdotal occurrences. In doing so, you are just as bad as an ignorant talking head on Fox News. Think and put yourself in others shoes before you rant.
I think you're making a straw man. The anti-TSA bandwagon is not due to the fact that a small but significant number of TSA agents are very rude.
It's more due to the fact that a massive and totally unaccountable police force has been created that violates people's rights left and right, and has also been shown to be almost totally ineffective, despite costing billions of dollars.
Meanwhile, the federal goverment seems to have everything wiretapped. We now life in a "turnkey totalitarian state." [1]
This seems to bode quite badly for the future of the American experiment in individual rights.
I love how anti-TSA supporters seem to forget that EVERY country has a "massive and totally unaccountable police force" that "violates people's rights left and right".
It's just American's anti-police, anti-government, anti-authority streak that cause them to rise up against it.
And there is a substantial view round the rest of the planet that America is a "massive and totally unaccountable police force" that it "violates people's rights left and right", as discussed here, for one example, when certain web sites get taken down and people who have never stepped foot in the USA suddenly have to be sent there to face American "justice", which Americans them selves seem most uncomfortable with.
It's just American's anti-police, anti-government, anti-authority streak that cause them to rise up against it.
No, it's called the principle of individual rights. The founding principle of the US, totally unique for its time. Now, it's mostly out the window, but it's still in our blood to some degree, as it should be. Also, limited government.
And not only does the TSA totally trample these American principles, but as others have pointed out, it's a much worse unaccountable police force than can be found in most other Western countries.
This seems a massive overstatement of the powers of the TSA. They pat you down for weapons before getting on a plane. While it may not be justified or to your agreement, I just don't see how this undermines fundamental freedoms in the US and sets us up for tyranny. I worry about court hearing free forfeitures and surveillance. The TSA pat downs of children? Don't give a shit. Fight a battle worth fighting. Body scans at airport entrances are not part of an inevitable road to tyranny.
I don't know why you got downvoted, but FYI, I voted your comment up.
Remember, the TSA does not exist in isolation. By itself, maybe not a part of the road to tyranny. But look at the broader context (e.g., the government wiretapping everything, political parties that seem to be a complete farce, broken educational system, etc.).
The TSA shows that the government can and will arbitrarily inject itself anywhere in life, potentially under completely flimsy premises. As an American with a basic education in the history of our country, it seems just obvious to me that it was totally wrong for the government to ever have gotten involved with screening airline passengers. (I realize lots of people who know our history do not see it that way, though.) To me, this is very scary.
So again, it's not about the pat downs; that is not the cause, it's just the highly disgusting effect. People worried about TSA pat downs and scanners for their own sake are missing the boat.
It's not a power grab so much as maintaining their current power. Without this provision, the stock split would result in the founders' voting power being cut in half, in which case they would of course elect not to split the stock.
If I misunderstand, please correct me. As I see it, instead of splitting 10x voting stock held by the founders, they are issuing non-voting stock to everyone.
I'm curious to know how they will differentiate between voting and non-voting common shares in the stock market - it seems one is worth at least marginally more than the other.
If the stock is split, the founders' stock will also be split, and their share of the whole will remain constant (assuming there is only one class of stock in existence).
Listed companies have different tickers for each class of shares.
The phrase “Don’t test standard Active Record association” jumped out at me, since I’ve discovered a major bug in the most basic function of Active Record associations in 3.0.x.
