You're taking your own opinions and applying them to the entire target market. Just because you feel this way doesn't mean that everyone else does, and it certainly doesn't imply that "updating the site wouldn't make a dent".
I just wanted to chime in and say that I also found the popup very disruptive and annoying. I didn't download the ebook. I bet putting it at the end of the blog post will get you better results (you should A/B test it and do another blog post).
After all, the people that read all the way through the entire blog post are your target audience. These are exactly the type of engaged readers you want to capture.
So essentially he is saying, "do not worry, this is not a problem for you."
Just for fun decided to look into inbound links in webmaster tools for my site. Out of 3.3k links almost 3k links with all kind of non-relevant keywords from obviously spammy sites. Not sure why it is done, probably something about google's bot to see legitimate links next to spammed ones..
It is nice they have this new tool to devow links, but it is not linked anywhere from webmaster tools and you can find it only after you watched this youtube post (thank you BTW, just sent request to devow all these spammy links)
Ah gotcha, I guess that's pretty much all google can do. They also unfortunately validate it as a tactic against people/small companies that wouldn't otherwise realize: 1. They have a bunch of spammy links pointing to them, 2. That the links are negatively affecting them, and 3. They can do something about it.
Maybe it would be nice of them to email webmasters to notify them that they're being punished by spammy links, but I guess this would defeat the point of punishing it in the first place (as opposed to just not counting them towards the page rank).
They actually do send an email alert. I didn't find an authoritative blog post on the subject, but here's a post from a reputable SEO site discussing these email alerts:
I'm a day late, but it seems that nobody has answered your question. Here are some things you could have done differently:
- Have a vesting schedule for your equity. This way if things go south, you'll have a certain portion of your equity vested.
- Negotiate a higher equity stake in the first place if you're playing such a founding role. In my opinion, if the product didn't exist before you joined the team, then you're a founder. Remember that we're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight.
- Made the agreement up front that you had control over the technical decisions since you have the expertise to make those decisions.
I should have done these things but I let my guard down. I'm in a city trying to be a new startup city so there was a lot of attention and money thrown at one of the first startups. Everything was given to us, everyone wanted to advise and invest in us. I assumed this community would make sure nobody on this team screws each other because it would look bad. I owned 10% outright but was dazzled by techstars into signing papers that put me on a vesting cliff.
I think you skimmed the post. The memo is to his employees and he specifically addresses whether or not the advice is applicable to non-entrepreneurs (spoiler: he thinks it is).
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the advice, but it's clear that it is intended for "people who do the actual work".
I reread the post and I agree that the advice is also applicable to non-entrepreneurs (e.g. hackers, hobbyists). What became clearer is that his advice is to pursue multiple goals, not to juggle multiple tasks at once.
You misunderstood the comment. Angersock is saying that the networking equipment cost more than $5k and the friend was unwilling to buy a UPS to protect the equipment.
Sally learns best by doing X, while Sam learns best by doing Y. (Show cartoon Sally doing X and cartoon Sam doing Y). Most apps will try to teach Sally and Sam the same way, but the TommyTeaches app is smarter than that! Tommy will be learning as he teaches. Tommy will learn which techniques are best for Sally and Sam individually, then tailor the lessons to... etc.
> Just because you CAN do something in CoffeeScript doesn't mean you SHOULD, or should ALL of the time. Just like in JavaScript where, if you want, you can write all of your code on one line, but you shouldn't.
Isn't this precisely the problem? Why make a better Javascript then make the same mistakes as the original? One of the main goals is for Coffeescript to be more readable that Javascript. Having ambiguous syntax and so many different ways of doing things means that people will write code in all of these different ways.
Your rebuttal is a long list of what you SHOULD and SHOULDN'T do, but there are two problems:
1. Not everyone will agree with you.
2. People will write it the "bad" way anyway.
Ultimately this means less readable code, especially when you have to read someone else's code.
People will write bad code in every programming language you give them. I don't see that as a justification for limiting the expressiveness of a language. If you take that line of reasoning too far you end up with Java.
> I don't see that as a justification for limiting the expressiveness of a language.
That's a straw man. I never said that the expressiveness of the language should be limited. There are plenty of languages that are just as (more?) expressive than CoffeScript without the syntactical ambiguity.
> If you take that line of reasoning too far you end up with Java.
That's the slippery slope fallacy. I am in no way suggesting that CoffeScript should have completely rigid syntax. Surely there is a happy medium between CofeeScript and Java. There are plenty of languages that live there.
Or python, which is where the author is coming from. In python there are fewer syntactic ways to write the same thing (semicolons aren't optional, they're just not permitted. The only ways to write and and or are 'and' and 'or', '&&' and '||' simply don't exist. Map literals always look like {key1: value1, key2: value2}, the braces are non-optional ).
Even python's critics would admit it's a very readable language, and it would be unusual to claim it's not expressive.
Exactly. Expressiveness refers to the realm of problems a language can idiomatically address, not the number of ways a particular unit of logic can be equivalently written. If that were true, you could simply add any synonym for "if" ("when", "whenever", "assuming", "given" etc) to a language and claim the most "expressive" language.
Agree. When they invent a new language to fix some problems of the old one, if same problems (even more) appear in the new one, then why you need the new one? That's funny they try to fix some traps by introducing more pitfalls. What's the point? Those problems can be avoided by design, but they didn't.
In short, it was badly designed. Pointless to use it.
Also, his rebuttal doesn't defend the inclusion of those language features in the first place. If you simply "shouldn't" use a particular feature (e.g. if at the end of an expression), why should it be in the language at all? It shouldn't, ergo the language is nonsense, which was the original claim.
Right. They know that, even if they haven't done much about it. They want to be able to make their page slick, and a good user experience. This post documents their problems and provides a path forward.
Exactly, which is why FB is putting pressure on their dependancies (browser vendors) to give them the tools and features to make mobile web apps that delight people.
