PUBLIC MARKS from night.kame with tag "don't be honest"

The truth is it has always been this way with the WHATWG. As Shelly, John and others elsewhere have pointed out, this has happened a bunch of times before. This is par for the course. It’s not a “WHATWG” issue so much as it is an “Ian Hickson” issue. Ian has done a lot of (commendable) hard work getting the HTML spec into better shape over the years, but the fact of the matter is he makes very strange decisions too. He’s not there because he builds websites, or because he has a good relationship with the community, or that he follows his own processes (ha!), or he’s good at taking a consensus view, or anything like that. He’s there because the W3C failed so badly with HTML (see: XHTML 2.0), and Hickson editing the spec worked for vendors. Not you.

La WHAT Task Force n'a jamais été faite pour le Web, c'est juste une coalition des anti-Internet Explorer.

In prior experiments, we found page load times to be highly variable over real 3G and 4G cellular networks, making it hard to draw conclusions without running hundreds of experiments per site in order to estimate the statistical distribution. To reduce this variability, the phone was tethered to the desktop machine hosting the server using a USB connection, and traffic shaping was applied to the tethered connection using Dummynet. We emulated a 3G network with uplink bandwidth of 1 Mbps, downlink bandwidth of 2 Mbps, and a round-trip delay of 150 ms. These values were chosen as representative of cellular network performance in the United States. Note that packet loss was not included in the traffic shaping parameters, since cellular networks hide packet loss at the PHY layer, and our previous experiments have shown a TCP-level packet loss of less than 1% over typical cellular networks.

Google mesure la performance de SPDY sur les réseaux mobiles... en simulant le réseau mobile. Ils auraient aussi pu simuler SPDY, comme ça on aurait eu une couverture méthodologique à 100%.

One misconception that we’ve seen in the last few weeks is the idea that Google doesn’t take as strong action on spammy content in our index if those sites are serving Google ads. To be crystal clear: Google absolutely takes action on sites that violate our quality guidelines regardless of whether they have ads powered by Google

Complete and utter bullshit.

I do not care that a Google service is free. That is Google embracing a “You don’t like it? Too bad, it’s free anyway” approach. Free or not, all users are in the Google orbit and it is through advertising to us, their base, that Google has made the billions of dollars they have. There is no other corporation trading stock at the level of Google that does not offer customer support, plain and simple.

Et il a mis 6 ans à s'en rendre compte, c'est ça le plus triste.

Obviously, Google would prefer silence on certain subjects.

Visiblement ils n'ont pas d'expérience préalable avec le service "juridique" de Google : chez Google Ads, il n'y a pas de volonté propre d'étouffer certains sujets, tout simplement parce que cela requièrerait de la volonté.

So for him to claim that a W3C action is impacting the adoption of a spec he adamantly states is in WHATWG’s hand is like saying that the mayor of Osaka, Japan is blocking the Washington state budget from being passed. It’s an act of dishonesty at worst, or emotional manipulation of his readership at best.

.

Il faut bien qu'il exhibe les valeurs morales de son employeur de temps à autre.

He only recalls receiving one DMCA notice – ever – from Blogger. As this email did not name the offending song, he says he doesn't know what caused the complaint. Masala's bloggers responded to Google's email, Decouflet insists, but never heard back. That is, until their entire site – and more than four years of archives – were deleted this week.

Chez Google, on aime bien jouer à "qui est le plus bête ?". Le problème, c'est qu'ils gagnent souvent.

Google said through the recent talks it realized its communication with the Chinese writers was not good enough and would apologize for it.

Chez Google, tout est communication, c'est dommage que ce soit leur service juridique qui s'en charge.

I tested it a bit, and it seems that what's implemented in that tool bears very little relation to RDFa. It's not simply a buggy implementation - it's not even attempting to handle RDFa remotely correctly.

Comme d'habitude, Google et ses milliers de docteurs en sciences est infichu d'appliquer un standard, si minime soit-il, du premier coup. Il faut dire que les docteurs en sciences chez Google sont tous dans les département "datamining" et "publicité". A la programmation, ils n'ont laissé que les prag-ma-ti-ques.

Google ne veut pas partager le gâteau de la pub, et ils trouvent qu'ils ne remontent pas encore assez d'information de leurs utilisateurs. Viens Google Browser : plus de barrière pour récupérer toutes les informations nécessaires pour cibler les bannières de pub, et ceci est en temps réel grâce aux actions de leur taupe Hickson.