He did say "easy to manage". I guess that's relative. Having the database always available has some conveniences (e.g. you can actually have comments on your pages instead of a JavaScript placeholder), and using a platform that's both really popular and quite mature has even more. A couple of comparisons should illustrate:
How to write a post with WordPress:
1. Click the + button
2. Write
3. Check the tags you want
4. Click publish
How to write a post with Octopress:
1. Type `rake new_post["whatever you want your title to be"]`
2. Navigate to source/posts/yyyy-mm-dd-whatever-you-want-your-title-to-be and open it
3. Type your post
4. Enter the categories in brackets at the appropriate place in the YAML front matter
5. Go back to the root of your site and type `rake generate`
6. Type `rsync -az public/ user@yourserver.com:yoursitedirectory`.
This is based on the Octopress documentation -- I've only ever used naked Jekyll, but it sounds fairly similar, so I don't think I'm being too unfair here. I'm also giving Octopress a lot of leeway by e.g. including the press of "publish" as a separate step for Wordpress but not the equivalent step of saving when writing for Octopress.
It only gets harder from there. Installing and tweaking a Wordpress theme or plugin is pretty easy. With Octopress, you actually have to sit down and code.
I get that some hackers might be into all that, but surely you can see why somebody might find Wordpress more convenient.
I'm not a heavy user of gdb but every now and then I have to pull it out and use the basic features that I learned in a tutorial one day. I can't believe I have never heard of reverse debugging, would have saved a ton of time.
This article is kind of only half-thought through. Facebook is making contact to the user on behalf of this person that claims to be 'advancetehri', it is not a 'cold' invite by Facebook. This user 'advancetehri' used the invite a user feature and put this person's number in.
Evil plan to grab new users? No.
I feel like a vast majority of people take every single chance they get to argue that Facebook is out to get them.
Guess your comment is actually half-thought. I'm the person this blog post is talking about. And I'm pretty sure, I (and none of us in my family) even remotely know this 'advancetehri' guy. And who the hell has a name like that?
Also, when I clicked that link and when @iambibhas clicked that link, we both got immediate friend request from 'advancetehri'. (We blurred the link because it exposes the full phone number to anyone who clicks it) Rings a bell?
You really don't get the point? Friendship request is an action From one user(say B) to another user(say A). Person A got sms because B sent a friend request to A only!
Why the hell would I or @rish404 get a friend request from person B is we click that link? The link is a notification sms of an event, it should not contain an action that says "Send friend request to anyone who clicks this link from person B".
Do you now understand my point?
Speculation: When someone generates friend requests e.g. by allowing Facebook to mine their address book, FB only has to generate a single friend request ID. (I'm not saying this is the "right" way to do this.)
You need to do a better job of blurring (or just black-boxing). I didn't really try, but it appeared I was able with a bit of effort to make out faint images of the blurred characters.
There's definitely a pile-on effect happening. Consider that story about click fraud a few weeks back. As far as I can tell click fraud isn't any worse on Facebook than it is on any other ad network, but they took a disproportionate amount of heat.
I think it's a combination of the over-priced, under-performing stock, advertisers realizing that fb isn't that great of an ad platform that makes the shine come off of FB and make stuff like this seem less acceptable than it would have just a couple months ago.
If we're thinking of the same article, it wasn't about click fraud, but rather a unique-to-Facebook class of users that heavily devalues click-throughs on Facebook ads.
