Anil Dash

We haven't yet decided how to handle the problem for which progressive enhancement is but one solution.

IMHO progressive enhancement is an anchor and those who have pushed for it for years are false prophets.

Instead I think we should focus on mapping routes to state (documents) so that an entirely different site (one resembling the original web) is shown instead.

I'm the first employee at the company and AFAIK also the only person at the company that browses with javascript disabled by default (ironic, isn't it?), and one of the things that most excites me about the API-ification of the web with thick web clients, is the possibility to create server side frameworks that a static representation (basically pure HTML and minimal CSS) with javascript for famous apps. If the user has javascript enabled, it would completely replace the content in body with a rich app. If not, they have the glory of a motherfucking website [0]. IMHO, progressive enhancement was a huge mistake and we instead should have been make two sites all along: (1) super duper interactive apps/sites for the newest and best browsers, and (2) stupidly simple sites/documents that would be browseable by old browsers, screen readers and hopefully even lynx[1].

Making a site serve two masters is more work and results in a poorer compromised experience for all. Apps and documents are built on fundamentally different abstractions and trying to find an abstraction that can accomplish both is a pipe-dream.

If…

I tried applying for one of these permits on the largest stage in the US -- NYC -- on several occasions. The Parks Dept, which issues such permits, is a nightmare to deal with: they charge per application, require multiple applications merely to check different dates, and regularly lie about the availability of parks.

You might think spontaneous assembly is an option, and in some cases it is, but if you're going to have speakers (people), you need a sound system, and to set up a sound system you need a police permit, and to get a police permit you need a Parks permit. Start setting up without these and you'll be arrested before anyone utters a word.

Then there are the various "public-private spaces". Try applying for a permit to rally in Zuccotti Park and the go-to person will put you on hold, only to come back and say they are only issuing permits for cultural events. So the developers get their air rights, while the public gets the muzzle. Bullshit. Anil Dash has written about this some: http://dashes.com/anil/2012/03/captive-atria-and-living-in-public.html

Indeed, the very frequency with which the Farmers' Market is now held in Union Square, the most central spot in NYC and a place rich in social movements, might be construed as little more than cover for crowd control, have as it does the effect of making this space all but inaccessible to protesters.

Chris Anderson and Wired manipulate facts to forward their theories with whatever new theory and bandwagon they are jumping on.

The data cited in 'The Long Tail' was not accurate[1], and actually supported the counter-argument. 'Free' was similarly vague[2] and inaccurate[3].

The entire m.o of Anderson seems to be to take a concept or theory that sounds interesting and package it in laymans terms for a gullible public. It is presented as 'research' or a 'breakthrough' and most average readers suck it up, but these theories are usually far from.

To see them doing it again with this latest theory is no surprise. Anderson really doesn't let the truth get in the way of a good story, especially when there are magazines and books to sell, and high-priced speaking gigs to book.

(see also the excellent: http://dashes.com/anil/2009/07/free-criticism-and-science-without-data.html)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail#Criticism

[2] http://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/criticism-of-chris-andersons-free/#comment-3630

[3] http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/07/06/090706crbo_books_gladwell

App.net isn't a solution. They are still a centralized social network, owned by one company. Sure, they treat users nice now, but what happens if the business model changes?

Second, it's impossible to get on App.net's social network without paying a significant sum of money. This means a truly diverse set of voices will never be represented on App.net. For more, see “You Can't Start the Revolution From the Country Club” by Anil Dash: http://dashes.com/anil/2012/08/you-cant-start-the-revolution-from-the-country-club.html

I have the most hope, long term, for the Tent protocol: https://tent.io It's not ready for prime-time yet, and the existing hosting service is not entirely smooth. But anyone can set up their own provider. We could have some businesses that charge a few dollars a month, like App.net, and put users first, and other businesses that offer free service with ads, and it would all be on the same network, just like the competition among email and web hosting providers today.

>"I'm terrified of doing anything that would make me look like a jerk in front of my family and friends."

That just doesn't seem true. He consistently goes out of his way to engage in trivial arguments with people, especially on Twitter. Literally days after the sale, he called out Anil Dash in a needlessly confrontational way about some minute error in his history of Tumblr (http://dashes.com/anil/2013/05/seven-years-ago-my-wife.html). Not to mention the time when got in some squabble with a writer for one of the Apple rumor sites, then blacklisted said site from every Instapaper account.

As far as I'm concerned, he's made a jerk of himself in public innumerable times already. He just seems like an abrasive guy. That's not to say that his work is inferior (certainly assholes have created incredible work before), but any fear of looking like a jerk is moot. He has been a jerk forever.

>Here in Manhattan, where I live, basic search by building names is profoundly degraded in Apple's maps search. "Bloomberg" doesn't find the Bloomberg Tower; on Google Maps it's the first result. Searching for its address "731 Lexington Avenue" yields that address on Lexington Avenue in Brooklyn. It's fine to think that perhaps I wanted the address in Bed-Stuy, but even appending "NY, NY" or "Manhattan, NY" still yields the Brooklyn address. Google maps has none of these comprehension issues. I understand this is due to Apple partnering with Tom Tom, whose maps are considered to be lower in quality than other players like Nokia, but I'm not informed enough to say with certainty whether that's the case.

http://dashes.com/anil/images/lexington-map.jpg

Source: http://dashes.com/anil/2012/09/who-benefits-from-ios6s-crappy-maps.html