Infrequently Noted

Seems events are overtaking even my most sarcastic musings. Too bad the Dems are doing this something like a year too late. They find their stones now? Oy.

Big props to the team that put together the beautiful 20 Things web book. Browsers do a lot and most of it isn't obvious. This and a more technical overview do a great job of spreading the word.

I'm getting ready to get on a plane this evening to speak at Full Frontal JavaScript 2010 in Brighton. I've been talking about something Chrome Frame-like since before I joined the project at Google, and the reasons I'm excited about it stretch way beyond liberation from the current set of boat-anchor browsers. Indeed, I think what we've got in today's best browsers isn't even scratching the surface. Once the rate of change in the web platform gets back to where I think it should be, how we build things will change dramatically...and that's change I've been waiting a decade for. Sure, today we can use libraries to get ourselves a competent version of what good browsers can do for you, but what will we be doing next? Remy Sharp is giving me a chance to paint that picture more fully in Brighton later this week and I'm incredibly grateful to him for the opportunity. I'll post slides here after the talk, but if you're in Brighton either for the conference or just 'cause you're awesome (you know who you are), I hope we'll get to chat about it in person. The future's about to get better.

Update: slides are here. And no, they're not supposed to make sense without the talk. Sorry.

Hello, people I identify with (implicitly calling out the other), I have a theory you might identify with, since I think it describes you and your work and I identify with it. We will be ignoring counter-factuals today to make the process easier. Also, this post contains no actual data or research. It's merely the regurgitated musings of someone with very little experience in the topic at hand, armed with infinite amounts of self-congratulatory rightness. Because you and I already share attitudes and values, and because we've all read the same Paul Graham articles, this won't be much of a debate.

Here's my great theory:

True statement, exaggerated

Blah blah blah, setup, context, blah blah.

• Basic example: drawing dubious (if implicit) causal connection. Gotcha!
• Further example: this one is more tenuous, but I think you'll stick with it 'cause you already swallowed the first one. Besides, you already agree with me.
• Left-field example: Phoning it in. Also, I'm on a horse.

TODO(authorshandle): fill in with causal-sounding, non-research-backed explanations about why what I'm selling is true and not in any way exaggerated. If anything, it's understated.

Conclusion

Disclaimer: this could be entirely wrong, so if it is (and we all know the odds), you read this disclaimer.

My startup is founded entirely around the principles I've outlined here, which is why we're going to not only bring peace to the world, but get rich doing it. If you're an investor, you'd be a sucker not to put your money with us. Not an investor? Please go click on the obviously placed link earlier in the paragraph and witness our closed beta signup form.

Self-aggrandizing "thanks" for help writing this article, preferably including name-drops of folks i think you've heard of, but not so many that it's obvious.

Bart Bernhardt -- Nerd Nite host, ad systems person you should really hire, and board game designer -- on a thread regarding this paper:

The New Godwin's Law of Economic Analogies: As a stimulus argument grows longer, the probability of someone comparing government stimulus spending to ditch digging/filling approaches one.