The only thing I hate about pages like this is that they hijack the browser with their fake history. When I press the back button from this page I want to go back to your homepage, or back to HN. I don't want to have to click it 20 times to get back to where I was. Playing the presentation in reverse doesn't even make sense so it's not a use case you should design for.
I think this presentation/page isn't simple enough. You use too much different fonts and styles (there are slides with regular, bold and italics style in one sentence). I liked the rocket-shape of presentation though. It's just my opinion, I'm not an expert.
The link you posted does not "speak for itself." Can you provide some context for why you posted a link to the least authoratative reference site on the internet? Even if it was the OED I'm not sure I would understand your point.
So your link was for the special usage note to the last entry on the page that begins with "sometimes"? Furthermore I have never seen this idiom used when it is preceded by "can."
That looks like a suprisingly terse entry from the oed. I do not think io have eveer seen such a short entry from the oed. How much did you edit and leave out?
In the OED entry for the verb "speak," there is a sub entry for "to speak for." About half of that is devoted to "speak for yourself," which is what I quoted. It is followed by the typical list of examples.
There was a Simpsons reincarnation joke that used the phrase:
Sideshow Mel: You only live once!
Apu: Hey, speak for yourself!
I like how you also did that with the dates (e.g. "Friday" goes to "Fri")
Unsolicited feedback: At the narrower widths, the sidebar (.secondary) would be better off falling after the main content (.primary) It might also work having "Filter by topic" turned into a drop down.
I did a php app for a client on Media Temple's (gs) and it was unbearably slow. The php execution time would vary drastically (.1 seconds to over a minute) even on a simple debugging page. After a lot of back and forth with customer service and never being able to pinpoint the issue, I switch to Linode.
I wonder if this is a general Media Temple thing. I have a few small sites using Drupal on MT and the response times vary widely. I thought it was because of Drupal itself (I never use it; client decision) but maybe it's just MT, which I've found to be basically horrible overall.
Sorry to hear about your bad experience so far. This would usually be the case due to different configurations between the sites, but if they are all the same uniform configuration we'd be happy to take a look for you. Please let me know if you have a support request open already. Finally, what in particular have you found horrible, and what would you like to see us fix the most?
I've noticed the same. Did a lot of agency work last year where the agency boss got every client on MT to get the affiliate perks and was getting constant grief over slow sites, slow scripts and whatnot. I stuck copies of everything onto an old Dreamhost account I had and it flew.
In my experiences over 6-7 mo, MT had these speed issues roughly 50% of the time.
I thought about having a shared host option but honestly, shared hosting is kind of a joke if you're running any sort of custom app. It can be reasonably assumed that most shared hosting is used for static sites and PHP blogs.
I'll also add that I keep a MediaTemple gs account in addition to my VPSes for various static sites. You can actually use it to host your DNS and email then have your site resolve to the ip of another server. Obviously that's a really expensive option for basic email but if you've got the account for some other reason like me then you've got 100 domains you can add for free so it's an option in rare cases. Anyway, I'm in the middle of building a PHP app for a client on their MediaTemple gs account and I'll testify to the fact that performance varies wildly. I haven't seem anything take over a minute to execute but I've seen it go from .1 to as high as 50-something seconds. I've found you can fix most of the long queries by writing more efficient code. You'll still get some wild variations but not as often.
Maybe things will change with how the browser implements fractions but 112/3 = 11(2/3) and 3431/5147 = 3431/5147 (there is no 1/5) http://imgur.com/a/4FFNy
