I was a beta tester for Squidoo early on, and honestly, I still have no clue about what it does. People can run their own weblogs, so why write on Squidoo? People want to determine their own content types, so why only stick to the “modules” Squidoo provides? I don’t get it, but maybe lots of other people do and I’m in the minority. Either way, I got this funny email from the Squidoo beta team just this morning and I thought I’d republish it to see if you guys got the same kick out of it:
Jeremy Wright posted an entry the other day titled, “Web 2.0 Companies Need To Scale” where he talked about how infrastructure scalability is sometimes not written into the plans of new “web 2.0” companies and I agree. He then continues to talk about how executives at companies want 3 or 5 9’s of uptime (99.999% uptime) but aren’t willing, or aren’t aware of, the massive cost at each step of the way. I thought his article definitely needed to be written, and kudos goes out to Jeremy for having the foresight and cojones to actually write it! Oddly though, that article has been under fire for a day or so now and I think some of what Jeremy is saying has been misinterpreted.
Paul often tells me the CSS I write tends to look like complicated C code, and for the most part, I’d agree. The stylesheets I usually produce rely almost exclusively on descendant selectors which let me pinpoint
<div>‘s, headings, and other tags in a very precise manner for styling. In this entry I’ll talk about my theories behind XHTML and CSS code, practices I feel are better than others, and my thoughts on image replacement.