In the 1980s and 90s, knowing about computers was also a way for kids to "rebel against old people". It was us who could teach our teachers how to use and program a computer, not the other way around.
That's gone now. Today, config.sys is something "old people" talk about, why would a kid learn /that/?
> In the 1980s and 90s, knowing about computers was also a way for kids to "rebel against old people".
Growing up in the 1980s, knowing about computers was actively encouraged by all the adults in my life (parents, teachers, etc.)
While some of the particular uses of that knowledge may have been rebellious, actually gaining the knowledge itself was not.
> It was us who could teach our teachers how to use and program a computer, not the other way around.
For the people for whom that was true, IME, computer knowledge often wasn't the only thing it was true about.
> That's gone now.
No, to the extent that it was true in the 1980s and 1990s, its still true now. Most adults (including most teachers) still don't know much about computers, and its seems just as common for young people to be able exceed the teachers they are likely to have at skill with programming current computers as it was in the 1980s or 1990s. And there are plenty of rebellious applications of computer-related knowledge for the young.
Not having useful drugs against bacterial infections has killed many more people in the past than all violent governments combinded. Because bacteria infections where the number one killer for centuries.
The above argument is not whataboutism. The statement "the US is basically doing a fantastic job of fucking up antibiotics for everyone" is false because no policy change in the US will significantly affect the rate at which resistant strains appear worldwide, US antibiotics consumption being less than 3% of China's. This refutes the original argument by bringing in additional information, whereas whataboutism is defined as changing the subject "without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument."
Its a giude about web UI best practices, and the icons symbolizing the different topics are not clickable?
Besides, I didn't even notice that some of the headlines/h2s in the subsequent pages are actually clickable.
Then, they actually enlosed their <video> elements inside a <a> tag. So now, when I click on the controls of a video, it will open the linked page. No way to use the video's controls without leaving the page I am reading.
Three basic errors found in under a minute on a simple text site. I don't think I want to take any UI design advice from that person.
Clicking the non-control parts of the video opens a demo page with the responsive HTML/CSS demoed in the video. The controls still work, at least in Chrome 34 on Mavericks. If you're talking about something else, could you file an issue on GitHub?
This seems like some guy who's AdSense account got banned and now he's trying to take his revenge.
If there is any proof, just go to some good journalist, like Snowden did. The journalist will know how to proceed about publishing things for maximal media attention and impact on public opinion.
Had the same thought. Not saying Google's all sunshine and daisies, but this guys is doing exactly what anyone who was lying in this situation would do....
He has yet to give a single shred of evidence, and I find it highly unlikely that after three years he doesn't have a single piece of evidence that isn't tied to his identity.
The whole article is him trying to reinforce the fact that he 'knows the inner workings of Google', by, once again, giving us literally no evidence of that knowledge... Stating that he used Google specific vernacular in his last post, but not letting us know what...
It's not as if people are hard to convince; everybody likes to watch a giant fall, just give us some proof.
That's gone now. Today, config.sys is something "old people" talk about, why would a kid learn /that/?