"The mobile website banner links to content within the app. A user clicks the download button, installs the app and, after install, is deep linked to the same content in the app."
So the usecase is: when you want to see the exact same thing in an app as you can on a mobile website.
> Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise
Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? Maybe if its employees engaged in intimidation of journalists, or lying under oath? Or would they need to burn a flag and strangle a bald eagle?
I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal. I'm also not a member of the US government, though, so even if I wanted to see the NSA burned to the ground, it wouldn't really be relevant.
For a senator, much less a theoretical president, not having a close relationship with intelligence agencies really isn't an option, especially if he intends to change or reform them.
> I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal
So it's like a waste management company that's a front for Mafia activity like extortion and racketeering. The company isn't illegal, just the activities of a tiny fraction of its employees.
> What was violated? What has been done that is illegal?
The whole mass metadata surveillance program was illegal; what was violated was the Constitution, insofar as, even assuming that the government could Constitutionally act in the manner the executive did, such authority of the Government as a whole would rest on authorities granted to Congress under the Constitution, not to the executive independently.
Or have we already forgotten that the mass metadata surveillance program was ruled by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to not have been authorized by the Patriot Act provisions the NSA relied on for it? [0]
You didn't really answer my question. Actually, you didn't answer it at all. Because I'm not very bright, can you please spell out, in very simple terms, what right was violated?
> SENATOR TOM COTTON: The program has been approved 40 times by 15 different, independent federal judges based on 36 years of Supreme Court precedent. It has been approved by two presidents of both parties. [0]
> You didn't really answer my question. Actually, you didn't answer it at all.
Yes, you asked two questions, and I answered both of them:
Q. What was violated?
A. The Constitution, in that even if the bulk metadata collection program did not intrude on reserved rights and therefore could Constitutionally be done by the government, it would require authorization by Congress for the Executive Branch to have authority to do it, and, although the Executive has claimed it was authorized by Section 215, it was not, as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
Q. What was done that was illegal?
A. The entire bulk metadata collection program, for the reasons stated above.
> Because I'm not very bright, can you please spell out, in very simple terms, what right was violated?
The most fundamental political right on which the entire American system is based: the right to popular sovereignty, that is, the right to a government in which each part of the government exercises only those powers assigned to it by the people (in the case of the US, either directly through the Constitution, or through acts of other parts of government themselves acting through their Constitutional powers.)
> that is, the right to a government in which each part of the government exercises only those powers assigned to it by the people (in the case of the US, either directly through the Constitution, or through acts of other parts of government themselves acting through their Constitutional powers.)
This is what I am confused about.
> SENATOR TOM COTTON: The program has been approved 40 times by 15 different, independent federal judges based on 36 years of Supreme Court precedent. It has been approved by two presidents of both parties.
I am not clear on this point. I am wondering if someone can explain to me where in the Constitution something was violated. According to the source I've linked a few times, I don't understand.
To be blunt, everyone seems to throw around "violated the Constitution" without ever citing the Constitution.
The best part is, when Randies get what they actually want (http://galtsgulchchile.com/) they end up with what any rational person expects would happen.
Maybe if the federal government showered billions of dollars on police departments for catching rapists and other violent criminals rather than locking up drug users or giving out free urban assault vehicles, we'd see different outcomes.
> the Backblaze info seems really unfiltered and close to the real world.
Cloudflare seems to be a similar company. I recommend them both to anyone somewhat technical who needs a CDN.
My only complaint about Backblaze is no Unix client. I thought about setting up a Windows VM to manage backups, but I was terrified that Gninjas would sneak into my house at night and shave my beard.
The centerpiece of your landing page seems to be mock-security cam footage of a room full of brogrammers ("he uses his guitar to pick up girls") and an LED light that changes color. I have no idea what you're selling me, other than hype.
It wasn't until I found your github repo that I realized you're a ruby/rails web development shop and that your definition of "full-stack" means both CSS and Javascript.
The worst thing is, if you're a web development shop, you're selling your ability to communicate, to engage users, and turn them into customers. My #1 take away from that page is, "how can you sell my product if you can't even sell yourselves?"
Kudos for not using Yet Another Bootstrap Landing Page. But there's a reason that so many people use that template; that standard landing page makes it easy to communicate an elevator pitch about your product and invites a clear call to action. That should be the minimum bar for you to replicate.
