How Popular Websites Look at the time of Start Up

1. Google.
The search engine giant Google was founded by Stanford PhD students Larry Page and Sergey Brin and launched sept 4, 1998. At the time of start up the founders are not familiar with HTML they came up with simple quick design.
1_google

2. Facebook
Facebook the famous social networking site with the active users of 900 million across the world started with the name Thefacebook. It was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, student of Harvard University on Feb 4, 2004. The image at the top left corner of interface is digitally manipulated photo of American actor Al Pacino.
2_facebook

3. Youtube
Youtube is a video sharing website founded by Steve Chen, Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim and launched Feb 14, 2005. Later, in November 2006, it was bought by Google for US$1.65 billion. The first video uploaded to the site was created by one of founders, Jawed Karim and was titled “Me at the zoo“. It was 19 secs clip of him in front of elephants at the San Diego Zoo.
3_youtube

4. Yahoo!
An acronym for “Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle,” Yahoo was the product of another Stanford duo, Jerry Yang and David Filo. In March 1995 the site was heralded as the first online navigational guide to the web. The original interface featured a simple search bar and hyperlinks to other websites, but soon became a sleek, personalized news website.
4_yahoo

Dizzying But Invisible Depth – Complex stuffs behind the simple machines..!

2d3608448878c149b6498c1255e34250

It Seems to be very large post but its worth to read. A wonderful essay by Google Engineer.

You just went to the Google home page.

Simple, isn’t it?

What just actually happened?

Well, when you know a bit of about how browsers work, it’s not quite that simple. You’ve just put into play HTTP, HTML, CSS, ECMAscript, and more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they’ll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.

Let’s simplify.

You just connected your computer to www.google.com.

Simple, isn’t it?

What just actually happened?

Well, when you know a bit about how networks work, it’s not quite that simple. You’ve just put into play DNS, TCP, UDP, IP, Wifi, Ethernet, DOCSIS, OC, SONET, and more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they’ll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.

Let’s simplify.

You just typed www.google.com in the location bar of your browser.

Simple, isn’t it?

What just actually happened?

Well, when you know a bit about how operating systems work, it’s not quite that simple. You’ve just put into play a kernel, a USB host stack, an input dispatcher, an event handler, a font hinter, a sub-pixel rasterizer, a windowing system, a graphics driver, and more, all of those written in high-level languages that get processed by compilers, linkers, optimizers, interpreters, and more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they’ll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.

Let’s simplify.

You just pressed a key on your keyboard.

Simple, isn’t it?

What just actually happened?

Well, when you know about bit about how input peripherals work, it’s not quite that simple. You’ve just put into play a power regulator, a debouncer, an input multiplexer, a USB device stack, a USB hub stack, all of that implemented in a single chip. That chip is built around thinly sliced wafers of highly purified single-crystal silicon ingot, doped with minute quantities of other atoms that are blasted into the crystal structure, interconnected with multiple layers of aluminum or copper, that are deposited according to patterns of high-energy ultraviolet light that are focused to a precision of a fraction of a micron, connected to the outside world via thin gold wires, all inside a packaging made of a dimensionally and thermally stable resin. The doping patterns and the interconnects implement transistors, which are grouped together to create logic gates. In some parts of the chip, logic gates are combined to create arithmetic and bitwise functions, which are combined to create an ALU. In another part of the chip, logic gates are combined into bistable loops, which are lined up into rows, which are combined with selectors to create a register bank. In another part of the chip, logic gates are combined into bus controllers and instruction decoders and microcode to create an execution scheduler. In another part of the chip, they’re combined into address and data multiplexers and timing circuitry to create a memory controller. There’s even more. Those are actually such incredibly complex technologies that they’ll make any engineer dizzy if they think about them too much, and such that no single company can deal with that entire complexity.

Can we simplify further?

In fact, very scarily, no, we can’t. We can barely comprehend the complexity of a single chip in a computer keyboard, and yet there’s no simpler level. The next step takes us to the software that is used to design the chip’s logic, and that software itself has a level of complexity that requires to go back to the top of the loop.

Today’s computers are so complex that they can only be designed and manufactured with slightly less complex computers. In turn the computers used for the design and manufacture are so complex that they themselves can only be designed and manufactured with slightly less complex computers. You’d have to go through many such loops to get back to a level that could possibly be re-built from scratch.

Once you start to understand how our modern devices work and how they’re created, it’s impossible to not be dizzy about the depth of everything that’s involved, and to not be in awe about the fact that they work at all, when Murphy’s law says that they simply shouldn’t possibly work.

For non-technologists, this is all a black box. That is a great success of technology: all those layers of complexity are entirely hidden and people can use them without even knowing that they exist at all. That is the reason why many people can find computers so frustrating to use: there are so many things that can possibly go wrong that some of them inevitably will, but the complexity goes so deep that it’s impossible for most users to be able to do anything about any error.

That is also why it’s so hard for technologists and non-technologists to communicate together: technologists know too much about too many layers and non-technologists know too little about too few layers to be able to establish effective direct communication. The gap is so large that it’s not even possible any more to have a single person be an intermediate between those two groups, and that’s why e.g. we end up with those convoluted technical support call centers and their multiple tiers. Without such deep support structures, you end up with the frustrating situation that we see when end users have access to a bug database that is directly used by engineers: neither the end users nor the engineers get the information that they need to accomplish their goals.

That is why the mainstream press and the general population has talked so much about Steve Jobs’ death and comparatively so little about Dennis Ritchie’s: Steve’s influence was at a layer that most people could see, while Dennis’ was much deeper. On the one hand, I can imagine where the computing world would be without the work that Jobs did and the people he inspired: probably a bit less shiny, a bit more beige, a bit more square. Deep inside, though, our devices would still work the same way and do the same things. On the other hand, I literally can’t imagine where the computing world would be without the work that Ritchie did and the people he inspired. By the mid 80s, Ritchie’s influence had taken over, and even back then very little remained of the pre-Ritchie world.

Finally, last but not least, that is why our patent system is broken: technology has done such an amazing job at hiding its complexity that the people regulating and running the patent system are barely even aware of the complexity of what they’re regulating and running. That’s the ultimate bikeshedding: just like the proverbial discussions in the town hall about a nuclear power plant end up being about the paint color for the plant’s bike shed, the patent discussions about modern computing systems end up being about screen sizes and icon ordering, because in both cases those are the only aspect that the people involved in the discussion are capable of discussing, even though they are irrelevant to the actual function of the overall system being discussed.

Source: Thanks to Google engineer Jean-Baptiste Quéru

tsu – New Social Network shares revenue with users. !

Tsu was the company founded in 2013 by tech entrepreneurs Sebastian Sobczak, Drew Sobczak, Drew Ginsburg, Thibault Boullenger, and Jonathan Lewin which was located at New York.

tsu-social-network-e1415321346471

There are many social networks Facebook, Google+ and a new comer Ello. But tsu is different from others it has some new ideas. It promises users to pay for their contribution and sharing original content. I hope this might be a great rival for Facebook in future. Tsu founder Sebastian Sobczak says:

Why should anyone commercially benefit from someone else’s image, likeness and work giving no financial return to the owner?

So what does this mean for business influencers and brands? Tsu keeps 10 percent of the revenue it earns from its ads to maintain the platform. It gives the other 90 percent to its content creators and the people that share posts.

How to Join?

To join in this new social network you need short code i.e invite from other users. Create your new profile in tsu. Posting content, Friend Request, Followers are similar to other social networks. Click this link to join tsu.

How it allocate revenue?

From $100 revenue, $90 is shared with users. If four users have shared and re-shared content, the revenue is split like this:

The original content creator receives 50 percent of the remaining $90; in this case, $45. The first user to share the content gets 33.3 percent (one third) of the original $90 generated. In this case, $29.70.

The second degree user, who shares the re-shared content, receives 11.1 percent (1/3 of 1/3 = 1/9) of the original $90 generated. In this case $9.99. The third user (think your third degree connection) receives 3.70 percent (1/3 of 1/3 of 1/3 = 1/27) of the original $90 generated. In this case $3.33.

You can redeem your money when it reaches minimum of $100. tsu will send cheque to your home. Its a very cool way of sharing revenue – surely something that other companies might be interested in copying.

shared_economics_ad_revenue-e39964fdf52c21d98c028fde754c1f52

To ensure a safe and authentic community, Tsu prohibit users from earning money through illegitimate means:

  • Any attempt to game the system or impersonate others Spam, such as begging for follows, aggressive hash tagging, posting on strangers’ walls.
  • Inappropriate content, including violent, discriminatory, unlawful, hateful, sexually explicit or pornographic material.

Its an pretty cool idea from Sebastian Sobczak. To experience this new platform Join Tsu.