Just in time for Apple to patch iOS 7.1 ahead of its release. What a waste (unless it's been already patched in 7.1 beta and this is the last chance for this to be used by someone).
I suppose that means 7.1 won't be released until they've fixed it. It's so unimaginably stupid that they didn't wait until 7.1 was released so that the general public could get the bug fixes and performance improvements in that release and a jailbreak as well.
Garcia kindly asked him for help, presenting both of themselves as victims of a shady middleman, leaving plenty of room for Lee not only to come out on top and save his face, but even to turn this into great publicity for the movie.
"No, the primary reason is that IDs prevent reuse."
The fact that they cannot be reused in a single page is what makes IDs so useful.
There are benefits of IDs others mentioned, but for me properly used IDs make CSS so much clearer. An ID in CSS code is a flag saying: "custom-crafted for this part of the page only, not to be reused", or "non-modular code".
Unlike a class, an ID informs me with 100% certainty that if modified, it will not affect other instances on the page, because there are none. It's hard to overestimate the value of such information, especially when working on older or someone else's code.
>The fact that [IDs] cannot be reused in a single page is what makes IDs so useful.
This isn't enforced by browsers. They will happily render all elements with the same ID and apply the same styles to all of them.
This kind of thing really isn't useful. If you accidentally put the logo twice on the page, it will be clearly visible. It virtually never happens and when it does it isn't hard to track down.
This "just once" property of IDs really doesn't add anything useful.
>Unlike a class, an ID informs me with 100% certainty that if modified, it will not affect other instances on the page, because there are none.
If I modify one of my building blocks, I know that every instance of it will now look like this.
>This isn't enforced by browsers. They will happily render all elements with the same ID and apply the same styles to all of them.
We live in post-xhtml times, browsers will try to make sense and render all sorts of bad code.
>If you accidentally put the logo twice on the page, it will be clearly visible. It virtually never happens and when it does it isn't hard to track down.
You're assuming the visual difference in applied style is always clearly visible, like a repeated logo. No, it's often not, not until someone changes something in a class and the change is populated everywhere the class was reused. An ID is a guarantee it was not reused, or at the very least serves as a "do not reuse" sign.
Why not? If someone wants to reuse something, they probably have a good reason. Why would you get in their way? You won't gain anything from doing that.
> If I modify one of my building blocks, I know that every instance of it will now look like this.
But that's based on your own system, which may be non-obvious to other developers. The rules of valid HTML dictate the situation in which you will encounter a given ID, so this communicates something to every developer who sees IDs used in a given selector. To me that's tremendously valuable, and far more useful than trying to graft additional meanings onto parts of a single classname.
Whether that system is BEM, OOCSS, SMACSS or some other syntax, this kind of naming convention isn't a native part of CSS.
> But that's based on your own system, which may be non-obvious to other developers.
Yes, conventions are like that. You have to read the docs.
> [...] this kind of naming convention isn't a native part of CSS.
That's true for naming conventions in general.
Well, this stuff was added for a reason. If you know the rules, the SCSS and markup becomes way easier to navigate. Additionally, there are now many properties which can be automatically verified.
It adds structure which wouldn't be there otherwise.
This hire is a more natural fit than most techies would think.
The genius of Jobs was that he understood better than others that personal tech had more to do with fashion industry than tech industry.
He run Apple as a fashion company: he set trends, introduced seasonal device colours and collections, presented them in fashion gala shows packed with industry press. He was a fashion dictator.
Most of their competition still doesn't get it, they still think they sell technology.
Apple builds great technology, but it sells hip and sexy.
> I don't know if there are other investors than Y Combinator though, there might be one that will push for a sale.
We do have other investors, but (luckily) they're as uninterested in selling as we are. We've always been clear with them that we want to build this for the long-term.
I was linking the article not for showing that they're selling but because it's the first (most recent?) article I found in 2 minutes on Google stating their valuation (one article from 2012 talks about 1bln valuation, btw we're in the same league of Braintree)
"Speaking to RTÉ News in Dublin, Stripe chief executive Patrick Collison said he and brother John have no plans to sell the company. He said they already have experience of selling a company early in their careers and saw what that involves."
Patrick is 24, his brother is even younger. I am with Stripe from the day they launched in Ireland, it was easy to choose them over the likes of Braintree and Paymill who aimed for simplicity but still required quite some formalities. Also, Paymill is Samwer brothers, a turn-off for some entrepreneurs and developers.
"Speaking to RTE News in Dublin, Stripe chief executive Patrick Collison said he and brother John plan to sell as soon as possible at the largest possible price". If you can't imagine the opposite quote ever happening then there's no point putting much weight on the initial one - no matter what the circumstance.
