tl;dr: The browser attempts to learn your preference for each site automatically based on how you interact with videos. You can see what it's calculated by visiting chrome://media-engagement
The Google Home definitely supports Chromecast now [0].
My favorite related thing to say is "Hey Google, play House of Cards on my TV", and it will turn on my TV and then start playing the next episode from Netflix. Perfect for when I'm walking over to the TV with my dinner.
It's complicated in order to provide a lower-level API so that libraries can take advantage of different features and provide more opinionated ways of creating custom elements. Polymer is an example of a library which provides a simpler (but slightly more opinionated) API on top of custom elements.
> The value of shadow DOM is also quite doubtful to be honest. It is shadowed from whom and for what purpose? User don't care about DOM structure ... Programmers? They are OK with that.
The Shadow DOM provides style isolation, which is convenient to developers mixing-and-matching components, and can also be a performance boost as browsers can optimize for the fact that styles don't cross the shadow boundary. It also provides a bit more isolation for when you are writing code to discourage components from reaching into each others' private implementation.
I think the official documentation is what's found in the help center; this page contains a lot more information about using a custom passphrase for your sync data: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1181035?hl=en (top result when searching for "chrome sync encrypted").
Yeah, and please also don't send me any messages where you chose autocompletions for the words, or messages where your phone autocorrected the spelling of. Heck, don't even send messages where you pressed the keyboard buttons to spell out the words, it's far to impersonal and dehumanizing to be limited to the options your phone presents; people should communicate like they were meant to: by talking to each other face-to-face.
---
With Smart Replies (as with other communication-helping technology), meaning comes from how and when you choose to use them, and there's no reason you shouldn't choose to use them when it communicates what you were intending. If I was going to say "Yes!" and that's a Smart Reply option, why shouldn't I save the time and choose it? It was still my action that sent that message, still my choice to send it, still the meaning that I wanted to communicate. Smart Replies save time for the simple stuff, so you can better spend your time on other messages that you might write manually.
It says on Revolv's website that they're giving full refunds to current customers:
"If you're a current Revolv customer, please email us at [email protected] so we can help you out during this transition and provide you with a refund of the purchase price of your Revolv hub." - http://revolv.com/
It's nice to see WebKit adopt this approach too. Chrome and Firefox have already had a policy against new CSS properties with vendor prefixes for over three years, so with Safari onboard too now it's becoming easier to imagine a future where web developers won't have to worry about writing code with prefixes anymore. The only potential reason to use them will be compatibility with older browser versions.
According to the pre-match interview[0], the AlphaGo project is about two years old, and started out as a collaboration between two members of DeepMind and a member of the Google Brain team (Google's deep learning team which pre-dates the DeepMind acquisition by several years, according to Wikipedia). So really, AlphaGo is a combined effort that was always a part of Google, and I think it's pretty clear that resources provided by Google (money, equipment, and tooling) in addition to the techniques developed by both Google and DeepMind made this project a reality. I think they both deserve a lot of credit, certainly, but I wouldn't say that the credit is all that misplaced here.
> For some time, Google has been convinced that the semiautonomous systems that others champion (which include various features like collision prevention, self-parking, and lane control on highways) are actually more dangerous than the so-called Level Four degree of control, where the car needs no human intervention. The company is convinced that with cars that almost but don’t drive themselves, humans will be lulled into devoting attention elsewhere and unable to take quick control in an emergency.
I think this is a really good perspective. Considering how often drivers are already doing things like using smartphones behind the wheel of non-self-driving cars, I think that sort of activity is only magnified by partial autonomy - which is very dangerous! Humans get distracted or bored easily, especially when completing routine tasks. I'm glad that Google is choosing to build a car that never needs human intervention rather than rushing to market with a partial solution.
Here's a video where you can see what distracted teen drivers look like. Terrifying. http://youtu.be/SDWmwxQ_NnY
While you're right that it's up to the browser to fix, that can be a very time consuming process (especially for something as tricky as video). YouTube doesn't want to wait around for browser vendors to fix things, so they work around it themselves (just like happened in the opposite direction for this bug).
Finding workarounds for browser bugs is a common theme for the work that web developers do. Yes, browser vendors should fix the bugs, but in the meantime, there's no reason to have a bad user experience.
tl;dr: The browser attempts to learn your preference for each site automatically based on how you interact with videos. You can see what it's calculated by visiting chrome://media-engagement