Seeing is believing
www.seeingmachines.com

Groops - at first glance - seems a pure, extremly well crafted Group Forming Network

www.groops.at

Sorry for my bad cocaine joke, but a picture is worth a thousand words

Brad Neuberg defines interoperability for the Web. A wise decision to take this definition into account when you design a new piece in the web.

"The Open Web is an interoperable, ubiquitous, and searchable network where everyone can share information, integrate, and innovate without having to ask for permission, accessible through a powerful and universal client."
codinginparadise.org

en.wikipedia.org

Note for my brain: need to read more into Prospect Theory

Today I came to the notion of a "technical" Domain Model, by a smart colleague by the way. Domain Model being synonym to "Model of a Domain" inherently is pure business, although I conceal that certain properties - the way it was modeled - reflects technical constraints. I already was able to optimize the performance of a system by optimizing the Domain Model. But no Aggregate, no Entity, no Relationship in a Domain Model can be represent a technical term.
This is easily arguable for the core entities like Customer, but why should the Business Concept of a Searchquery not shaped by inquiring the analyst/business owner defining the business of the queries: do they have subqueries, would they be savable, do we have special operations on queries?
The same goes for legacy boundaries. What means it interact with the legacy FROM BUSINESS point of view. If its important its business, not technical.
That's what shapes the difference between an iPhone and a Smartphone.

What else should I say?