Despite your coworkers being stupid, ignorant or both stupid and ignorant, you still have to write code those coworkers they are able to maintain.

Your code none of your coworkers understand might be "good" on some subjective level, but it's not good in the real world.

Unless you have a guarentee that nobody will ever see your code, you are writing code for other people to read. Ignoring this simple reality is... well... it's ignorant.

Well, if a facebook page counts as a "website", I can give you a programming language that everybody can write apps with.
These apps will all look exactly the same and can only display fixed content, but you can program a different title and even a different picture!

I have to disagree.
I've seen smart non-programmers build working and useful SQL statements.

I'm guessing the language you propose is able to magically assume what the developer wants without the developer having to put it in unambiguous statements?
Programming languages are "obnoxious" because they require absolute 100% precision, and people generally don't like to be anywhere near that precise.
Saying "I want a program that adds up numbers" can have literally millions of completely different implementations.
You could make one that fits the ambiguous specifications perfectly, yet is the polar opposite of what you intended.

But please give a small example of your preferred language syntax.

If you think other programmers are dumb because they don't understand your code, then you are the one being dumb by writing that code knowing your collegues won't be able to work with it.
I'm sure they understand XOR and the ternary operator just fine.
A bunch of if statements are a lot faster to read, though, and allow for easier debugging and changing.
Remember that most time spent with code is reading it, and mostly by people who did not write the code.

This is one post where we can be certain nobody RTFA.

They delivered the product as promised, they just never gained the market share to go much further.
This is the same risk you take if you buy any new gizmo in a store.
Remember HD-DVD players?
Nobody got screwed here.

If vulnerabilities would never be publically exposed, it would remove incentive to fix the vulnerabilities.
Companies generally don't like to spend money fixing problems that they could far more cheaply deny.
The public good of "public disclosure" is that it makes companies accountable for their (in)actions.

Which is exactly the point. On most sites, you just want to READ content. RSS is just fine for that.

Your comment sure was pretty, though.

In this case they're not talking about the advertisement screens, but about websites that completely block mobile access and display a "download app" instead.
I know I've met a few such sites and just closed the browser tab instead.
Apparently I'm not allowed to see what one of their subscribers posted without having to sign away all my personal information first.
Those apps invariably need unrestricted access to my entire phone for me to view some pictures or read some text.
If I wanted to install an app for your site, I wouldn't be visiting your website in a browser, now would I?

I can only imagine they render the text to an image hosted on dmail's servers, which is deleted after a set time.
But that won't work with Gmail, since Gmail caches all images on their own servers (including HTTPS and never-ending images).

The most interresting thing about this (and some other kickstarters) is that people ARE actually putting their money where their mouths are.

How about an Attorney General knowingly siding with illicit corporate interests?

How are RC plane owners currently informed of the regulation?
Perhaps the drone producers could devote a page of their manuals on this subject (they probably already include "don't be a dick" notes anyway).