Get e-book Dawn of Embers: The War of the YC

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Dawn of Embers: The War of the YC file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Dawn of Embers: The War of the YC book. Happy reading Dawn of Embers: The War of the YC Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Dawn of Embers: The War of the YC at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Dawn of Embers: The War of the YC Pocket Guide.

The e-book is seriously illustrated with over illustrations and maps masking the Western Pacific, Vietnam, Mediterranean, center East, Indian Ocean, and Caribbean. Tugboats in the Port of Hamburg: In Tugboats within the Port of Hamburg the harbor tugs and mooring tugs of the Port of Hamburg come to lifestyles in photographs, descriptions and little tales.

Featured are all crafts deployed in or by some means associated with Hamburg in Konrad Algermissen takes you again in time, explains the layout and position of tugboats, and stocks insights concerning the crews and lifestyles on board. Ein Zeitbild German Edition. The stakes soon begin to rise as both halves of the YC and the war's rebels begin contacting Mitch with obligations to join their side--some friendly, some threatening.

As the devastating folds of the organization's history begin to unravel, and the clock begins ticking down, Mitch soon finds that his answer to the question 'Friend or foe? Would you like to tell us about a lower price? If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?

Owl City - Embers - Lyrics

Learn more about Amazon Prime. From the Back Cover "Friend or foe? America Star Books August 26, Language: Be the first to review this item Amazon Best Sellers Rank: Related Video Shorts 0 Upload your video. Try the Kindle edition and experience these great reading features: Customer reviews There are no customer reviews yet. Share your thoughts with other customers. I'm switching to Netscape. Joeri on Mar 26, Those people should throw away and recreate their profile, including the server-side backup, which is exactly what switching browsers does.

Pxtl on Mar 26, I've actually started switching browsers by website. Google Maps or YouTube? Dont get me started on how painful mobile chrome is. The most hilariously bad are ironically mobile "responsive" websites that just make it crawl and the scroll position skips around during long loads so tapping a link is Russian roulette - the link can move after the touch and you get whatever moved into its place. And just writing this post I got that great "cursor skips around randomly and doubles words when undoing a mistaken autocorrect". Yeah, I like Google software, but quality isn't really their thing.

I do the same. I was finding Chrome slow and bloated for general use so I switched back to Firefox but I still use Chrome for some Google sites. I do the same, except I use Vivaldi for Google sites ;-. I have managed to avoid it. Feels like this would be like going back to the end of IEs reign.. Most Google properties work way better under chrome. Google docs is incredibly slower under Safari, and some docs will be exponetially worse in Sheets. Youtube is decent in Safari but getting worse in Firefox. Hangout is buggy under Firefox, Keep is way too slow for what it does in both. It becomes a habit to switch between browsers depending on the service.

Youtube is slow and unstable on Firefox on non-high-end computers. I seriously wonder if Google does it on purpose, making the site work best on Chrome with enough plausible deniability for it to not be obvious. Other video sites both flash and html5 video work perfectly fine with no lag or jitter on Firefox on low end computers for me where Youtube is unusable.

It's not necessarily on purpose, but as far as I can tell they develop for Chrome first and then make it work in other browsers as needed. The result is that they do end up depending on various Chrome quirks, including both bugs and things it supports that other browsers don't yet, and the dependencies may or may not be found during testing which is also Chrome-biased as far as I can tell; I can assure you they test more in Chrome on Android than in Firefox on Android!

Seeing as most of Chrome is open-source and on Github, that's probably a little far-fetched It's not great on high-end computers either. But YouTube on FF is still pretty unusable. Manishearth on Mar 26, Check if sending the Chrome user agent string from Firefox makes it any faster or usable. This has been an issue in the past. I've switched to Vivaldi, it feels like the Firefox of old. It's chromium under the hood though. Opera 12 is the only viable choice. I almost agree but sadly Opera 12 is now so far behind that there are websites that don't work properly with it.

Especially if involves video. Al-Khwarizmi on Mar 26, I still have it installed. Otter is a good modern alternative for those of us who love Opera It's still missing features but it's getting there, and it's blazing fast. Razengan on Mar 26, Chrome was probably still is the only usable browser left on Windows, but I never used it or had to use it ever since I switched to Macs a few years ago.

Aside from the plugins ecosystem which I don't need Safari works infinitely better loads faster, uses less resources, even with s of tabs, and has nice little features like the Reading List, Reading Mode, Force-Touch Peek and so on and fits into the OS X look-and-feel more naturally than Chrome does. Firefox has been a memory hog for the last few years. Enough that I switched to Chrome, only to find it was just as bad. Macha on Mar 26, So just did a quick check, opened the same setup I had currently in Firefox in Chrome 30 tabs across 3 windows. I guess for my use case, I just don't care about that much memory usage.

Firefox has definitely improved over years ago, where it would have been 2GB for the same level of usage. At the time I liked it better than Firefox for that, but Servo looks like it could bring me back. Safari was never an option on Linux. I have yet to come across a modern web browser on Windows that's unusable - although I've "replaced" Edge for IE11 for several customers because of missing features.

Upcoming Events

I suppose that would count as unusable, but in those cases it's been for specific reasons. The PaleMoon fork of Firefox is still quite useable. Absolutely not, it has really fallen behind on features and the devs aren't competent nor numerous enough to keep the pace. They may get back on track with the new fork they're planning, but I'm betting they're going to fall behind again after that. Maintaining an entire modern browser on your own is no joke. Mobile Safari doesn't go anywhere near the top of my rankings until they can make it simple to disable the silly rubber-band scrolling for mobile apps.

Then after proper scrolling of the bottom part resumes, the navigation bar just disappears into nowhere!? This is why HTML5 just isn't there yet. I thought the video was of removing rubber failing. I would hate your Web app if you removed rubber. I don't mind at all if your top bar follows the rubber, which happens on plenty of websites. I would hope that a web app is compared to a mobile native app experience, not a website It's the stuff in the bottom that should have the rubber effect, but not buggy as in 0: In what case do you need it to be off?

Look closely at 0: This resolves itself automatically at 0: Also, from a UI design standpoint, to maintain consistency with everything else in the ecosystem, the navigation bar i. Only scrollable divs should scroll. FunnyLookinHat on Mar 26, I don't know about that Safari ranking. I get a super-fun rainbow wheel at least 2 or 3 times a day on Safari with only 3 or 4 tabs, and I rarely get that through chrome with upwards of Before you give a score to every browser, why don't you back it up with something objective?

I noticed the adblock extension on safari makes it freeze up for a second when I open a new tab. That's especially true for content-alteration extensions like ad-blockers as it's very easy to implement them in ways which work well enough with few rules but degrade superlinearly at scale. One shouldn't let an extension with access to all the pages run continuously. I wait for the day a famous extension like Awesome Screenshot will be pirated and publish everyone's bank account credentials Of course, between "should" and the reality, there's room for tolerance.

MBCook on Mar 26, I had that same problem with Adblock. Much happier now on Safari and uBlock.

Link for ublock on safari? I looked but my google-fu is lacking I guess. MBCook on Mar 27, It's not, you're right. I use Ghostery on my Mac and 1Blocker on my iPhone. Which sites are you loading in the tabs? These days Safari actually shows that rainbow spinner when the background process that runs the tab is hanging, even though Safari. This usually is indicative of a problem with a site loaded in one of the tabs in the window I believe Safari does process separation per-window , as opposed to a problem with Safari or WebKit itself.

He mentioned desktop and mobile. Read the article more carefully. Messing for the last several months also with mobile browsers on my Android devices. It blocks all the malware and web videos work even better in Firefox than in mobile Chrome. I'd love to know what I'm doing wrong. FF45 on a fast Android phone for me is almost unbearably laggy both on loading and scrolling pages. I mean to the point where I can't really understand how anybody is using it.

I've tried this with and without a couple of ad blockers and ghostery. For me A reason good enough to live with lags and stuttering. I'm running Firefox beta now 46 mostly Been using Firefox on Android since they switched over from their initial UI to the natively built one.

Only site I really have issues on are the Wikia family of sites. Just checked, they're better but still not a pleasant experience on Chrome either. I've got a wimpy first gen moto g and don't have any issues with firefox. How much of the poor performance discussed in this article is due to Chrome itself, and how much is due to the fact that Android devices tend to have worse single-core performance than iOS devices? Is there a browser for Android based on a recent version of WebKit not Blink? If so, that would help answer the question.

Didn't the author address this by talking about testing on both burner and top-line android models vs getting the web app working decently on an iPhone 4S?


  1. Learn Common Spanish Words by Solving Word Scramble Puzzles.
  2. Guia da(o) dona(o) de casa moderna(o) (Portuguese Edition).
  3. Der Klang der Erde: Historischer Roman (Historische Romane im GMEINER-Verlag) (German Edition).
  4. Strange Sci Fi Short Stories: The Supernatural Side.
  5. Log In to GameFAQs.
  6. The Art and Science of Digital Compositing (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Computer Graphics).

Top of the line Android phones can actually be worse for this problem than cheaper "burner" ones. Top-of-the-line Android phones tend to follow the pattern of having a CPU with many cores each of which is slower than the CPU would be if they used a single core solution. Maybe someone here can give us some insight into that. Chrome averaged ms while Firefox scored ms. Both of these results are slower than the iPhone 5S score of ms.

I switched to Firefox on Android for performance reasons a long time ago, but I don't know how well that holds true today. They're going to be slower, but for most web loads that should be "imperceptibly slower" because it might be 3ms instead of 2ms. Chrome on Android absolutely seems to be a bit like Superman -- it is strong and mighty much of the time, but when it faces certain otherwise benign kryptonite scenarios, performances fall through the floor, to the point of comedy.

Performance issues become very obvious with low spec hardware. Safari is incredibly snappy, complex pages like amazon. This old machine actually feels new in that scenario. The only concern I have about Safari is that Apple's security patches seem to come at a slow pace. I'm suprised by all this safari love in Working in front end web development, Safari has become the IE of today.

Compatability and support for otherwise common web technologies is just plain broken. If by "common web technologies" you mean mostly non-standard or experimental technologies then yes. Lets not forget that it was Google that forked WebKit resulting in duplicated effort to implement various features. Google also loves to ship stuff that isn't actually standardized yet which is fine but today's web developers go whine about Safari not supporting it yet.

No shit Sherlock, it's your own myopic view. Only testing in Chrome is as bad as only testing in IE 6 in Most of the "experimental" features we whine about are supported by all vendors, save for Apple Firefox, Chrome, Opera and freaking IE. It's a definite pattern: Safari is last to implement features, if at all.

Safari is slow to adopt new features, yes, but the features it has work properly and everything runs snappily. Or even I have a CSS issue to look into in Safari soon where a combination of tables, max-width, width and overflow properties is behaving oddly on Safari only even IE gets it right. This is CSS2 stuff.. There are numerous other problems with how iOS Safari handles video content that make it difficult or impossible to implement other functionality or UI behaviour that would make our site better for our users.

Post navigation

Since nobody in the comments seems to have read TFA thoroughly: It specifically ranks chrome and chrome mobile seperately both poorly , then talks about mobile development later in the article. Including comparing mobile Safari to desktop Chrome, so I think its all part of one argument. Probably just spending too much time on HN lately but I'm getting increasingly frustrated at the number of comments which are orthogonal or oblivious to the OP.

Yesterday's worst offender I think was PriceZombie where fully half the commenters didn't realize it was the Affiliate program not the Pricing API they got kicked off and so many "they could just scrape the data", "but no what about CFAA" back and forth And you read it and just shake your head: The main issue is that it shouldn't have ranked the desktop platforms.

It sounds like those are more for him, because the rankings were confusing to me. In some ways, yes. But the ranking is really where I slide various browsers in terms of ease of getting an app working well, and I think it's important to note that I generally find desktop Chrome more troublesome than Mobile Safari. The article is primarily about mobile Chrome vs mobile Safari, but the issue is only partially Android's fault. Chrome performs just as bad in JS and render benchmarks on desktop as it does on mobile, and it's memory leaks are present in both; but this matters less on desktop because powerful machines mask this for us.

My Nexus chrome browser is magnitudes faster than a fresh Firefox install. I don't know what this person is talking about. You need to compare to Safari and iOS devices to see the real difference. I ran a futuremark test on chrome, ff and safari iphone 6 and chrome was the slowest BUT in terms of actual website loading, chrome was faster than FF.

Although safari beat them all significantly! While your test is exactly what is expected from iPhones, it says nothing about their performance on other devices. Chrome and Firefox on the iPhone are not the same Chrome and Firefox found on desktop and android devices. Apple restricts apps that provide web browsing to use old and outdated versions of the native IOS rendering engine and JavaScript engine.

What exact futuremark test where you running? The only one I found was peacekeeper which is "no longer supported". I read all these instructions he gives on making an "efficient" app and just wonder if everyone wouldn't be better off with less JavaScript. I have never used a JavaScript app I would call "better" than a static site. You've gotta be kidding me. There's no any that's a better experience than 50kb HTML requests for anyone. You're just working way to hard. Very very few apps benefit from that kind of interactivity.

The form driven majority certainly do not. It's your pile of shit, not chromes"[analogous translation] [0] https: Would you see Discuss or Gmail or google docs implemented as a static site? As I understand it, we are talking about sites that behave more like an actual application, and not a wikipedia like "let's read one page after the other" type of experience.

That's a surprising comment to read as someone's who's immersed in making web apps in JavaScript that work great offline and synchronize data when possible. For me, sites that require network roundtrips for every state change are often near unusable. I've shipped a Cordova app for iOS that utilized heavy touch interaction.

zookeeper01.slashjobs.io/caxem-chloroquine-diphosphate-vs.php

Air Power in the Maritime Environment: The World Wars by David Gates,Ben Jones

We found that GPU-rendered elements were best kept at the top of the DOM and had to do some serious restructuring of the app to get everything to perform "well enough" on the iPhone 4. Weird thing is, when we went native, the users didn't seem to care too much. This was the case for both in-house tests and overall app usage metrics. In our case dating app , I think we noticed something akin to the weather app phenomenon: If the app tells you it's not going to rain, and it does, you blame the app. Most people either don't notice, assume they need to upgrade their device, or believe there's some technical problem that's out of their control which it is and that their experience only depends on what the app does, not how fast it does it.

Battle Creek Enquirer from Battle Creek, Michigan on December 11, · Page 11

If the app does what it says it will do, albeit slowly, they'll still use it. This isn't to say that buggy apps won't lose users, but rather, slow apps aren't as bad as we might think. BinaryIdiot on Mar 26, Interesting though it doesn't preclude it from being a UX issue. For instancing asking people who are already active users rarely matters unless the app is just that bad.

Product description

Typically making a change like that you measure the retention rate of new users and if it went up or down. How was the retention rate of new users after the change? Mikeb85 on Mar 26, I'm curious to see some actual benchmarks In my experience, Chrome still has the fastest JavaScript. Does Safari have some special extensions for the shitty 'native look' apps I encounter at Apple.

Did their JavaScript engine become x faster in the year or so since I've used it? Is the author comparing an iPhone 6S plus to a Galaxy S3? This article basically raises more questions than answers since there's literally no objective analysis of any sort There's not even an example of a page that runs on mobile Safari well but bad on Chrome, to allow me to see for myself. Just lots of handwaving.

Edit - No responses? Anyhow, I eventually figured I'd try hammerjs' examples, since that's one of OP's projects. On a Galaxy Note 3, Chrome is pretty shit, Firefox works well. On an iPhone 5S, Safari is shit. Not that bizarre, lots of threads about the superiority of Apple technology wind up like this.


  • Read e-book online Charting the Darkness, A Novel PDF.
  • A Route of Hope!
  • Summary: Fast Second: Review and Analysis of Markrides and Geroskis Book?
  • Lights Out.
  • SUMMER BALL: a month with the Torrington Twisters!
  • Not Your Typical Freshman – The Banner?
  • I just found it odd and infuriating that the blog post said Safari is times faster, but then literally offered no justification whatsoever. Also didn't even show a link to anything that can be tested, literally nothing objective. I would always just open up IE to check to see if my code was "valid" even when I wasn't targeting IE specifically. Just swallowing errors is not good practice, but I can't say that I noticed this in Chrome, tbh. Chrome isn't my default browser, I really only open it for flash content and to debug a site's JS when Safari isn't giving me the info that I need.

    I agree with the overall tone of the article -- mobile Safari is a decent browser, and in a lot of ways, a better experience for both the user and developer than Chrome. In some ways it isn't. Chrome has become awfully slow in the last year for me, culminating in the last few updates where the entire UI will randomly freeze for seconds at a time and bring up the "not responding" dialog on Windows. Sadly the alternatives aren't really any better no Edge on Win 7.

    I've not had this experience on Win 7 or Win