Geez, I hope not. Remember the disaster when AOL Research thought releasing search history was a good idea?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak

Great point. They created an MVP, it worked, and then put resources in when and where the needs declared themselves (stability, scaling...).

Considering the millions of miles driven each day, even if the networked signal wasn't heavily weighted, a spoofed emergency brake advisor signal could still do significant damage.

> If I'm in the jury and I can easily cut/paste - than that is on you.

A copy-paste litmus test is silly. You don't get to copy and paste Harry Potter just because it's in plaintext. Creators don't surrender their rights just because it's easy to steal them.

If you left the door open to your house and did not lock it - then it is on you.

Lock the door. Yes you can pick a lock, but that is not my point. Do something.

I'm with you but the F#-Websharper stack already exists for isomorphic ML coding in both the front and backends. Reason/bucklescript is only on the frontend and is an entirely different "dialect" compared to OCaml.

Having both Ocaml and F# descending from ML doesn't say much really, other than both implementing Hindley–Milner type inference and sharing some syntax. They are very different languages.

For example Ocaml has functors, polymorphic variants and row polymorphism, versus F# which has .NET"s OOP and subtyping. F# as a language feels to me more limiting.

I won't comment on the runtimes / environments, as they have pros and cons, but there's something odd about F# to Javascript compilers. There's WebSharper and FunScript and now Fable. I don't understand why the community can't get behind a single one, because neither of them is popular enough to have reached critical mass. Take a look at WebSharper's commit activity for the past year and compare with Scala.js or with ClojureScript. And note I'm not saying anything about its technical merits.

Whereas for FunScript and Fable, well FunScript is probably going to die and neither of them seem to cope with "isomorphic" libraries.

There's more to F# then HM type inference plus ".NET's OOP and subtyping". OOP and subtyping are rarely used. While it lacks some of OCaml's powerful features it shares many core features such as algebraic data types, exhaustive pattern matching, immutability by default, Option types and so on. It's also arguably easier to read with it's white space significance and not needing the rather distracting "in" keyword.

Having the vast .NET library is a big plus for the language, of which OCaml has no equivalent. Other great features of F# are type providers, straightforward multi-core programming and units of measure, which I don't believe have OCaml equivalents.

Will you integrate with React Native?

Serious question, what are you doing better compared to AWS? Efficiency wise, what can't you offer your own cloud services and cash in on 40-50% markup?

Running a single tenant cloud system is not the same as a multi tenant cloud system.

Wow. Google deprecating Chrome apps will hurt the Chromebook ecosystem, who will develop apps that can only be run on a Chromebook? What's up their sleeve here? Expanding the Play store to desktops?

I think the reasoning is less nefarious, Chrome apps never got that much love on other platforms, and I'm guessing they want to move towards Progressive Web Apps.

It's all about the Play Store. The apps being EOL'd only ever ran on desktops, and Chrome OS is sort of becoming Android for tablets/computers.

Chrome OS is actually not losing access to these apps for ~a year during which time the Play Store will continue rolling out alongside it.

What will be really interesting is when they roll out the Play Store for the rest of Chrome...

Yes, in fact: https://chrome.googleblog.com/2016/05/the-google-play-store-...

Well according to google only 1% used chrome apps on those other platforms.

I imagine they are thinking that developers will make quick and dirty Android ports to Chrome OS like they did with tablets.

Agreed for the most part, although there are rare valid uses for 3d graphs. I think most contemporary data vis people would say that Excel makes it possible to make pie charts at all means it may encourage bad practices.

I was hesitant about the pie chart example but it was the simplest I could think of. I'm glad someone brought this up. ;)

What are those rare valid uses for 3D graphs?

I can think of one-- we had a 96-element datatable (12x8) and limited space in our biochemical journal article. We were looking to graphically show differences in orders of magnitude to help explain the assay. A 3d column chart fit the bill because we could show lots of data in a small space, and readers could quickly see the range of values.

Awesome! What graphics library are you using?