It says functionality is represented in a wireframe. Doesn't wireframe simply shows structure? That is, which elements goes where. The functionality is shown in a prototype.
Mateusz Warcholinski mentioned Balsamiq[1] as an example of his definition for a "wireframe" tool.
Therefore, instead of trying to parse his description of "wireframe", it may be better to just look at Balsamiq's capabilities: https://balsamiq.com/
To me, it looks like his idea of wireframe is something "clickable" ... such that it launches another fake page, but not functional. A Balsamiq/wireframe tool is something non-programmers like designers and business leads could use to communicate a UX/UI.
[1]Mateusz Warcholinski wrote: "My favourite tool to do it: Balsamiq"
I use Balsamiq, and I quite like it. It is a wireframe tool, but also more. My typical workflow is to do the wireframe and get it approved, import images into the wireframe to turn it into a mockup and get that approved, then use the mockup to implmenent the prototype. I like that I can simulate functionality in the wireframe and mockup. In fact, I typically don't even know how I will implement the prototype until the mockup is complete with simulated functionality, because that's what I'll use to determine the implementation (for new projects only, of course).
I didn't intend it to be. I advised the questioner to simply do what I did myself : ignore the definition that Mateusz Warcholinski wrote which is open to misinterpretation (as this HN thread shows and Mateusz has acknowledged) and simply go to balsamiq.com.
After studying Balsamiq, work backwards from that to get an idea of what he meant by "wireframe" and whether or not it has "functionality".
You cannot define a structure without it implicitly acknowledging what functionality archetype will be associated with it. For example, even in a most basic wireframe of a web app if a wireframe showed a left column about 20% wide and 100% height anyone with any experience in software will instantly assume a hierarchical menu of some design.
I would agree they aren't tightly coupled but there is definitely an association there that can't be completely separated.
How is gathering more data on citizens a good thing?
Do you want to live in a police state? How will this benefit European people?
This rubbish is what leads to civil wars. You (and people like you) think you should know everything about everyone. People fought and died to protect Europeans from that.
You want to go back to fighting for basic rights that were hard won with peoples blood.
It's a good thing for data farmers, marketeers and opressors in power. Remember who the governments are beholden to and their actions(elimination of anonymity, TPIP et al, constant surveillance) all make sense... from their perspective.
I live in the Gulf right now, and hang out with investment professionals occasionally. The prevailing opinion appears to be that local investors are shrewd at a tactical level, but terrible at long term planning because of a tendency to go after flashy, high risk/high return prestige projects.
There is also the distinct lack of local sophistication: almost all investors are reliant on non-local agents for due diligence and investment lead generation. I guarantee that this is going to come back to bite them down the road: incentives need to be aligned, and right now, they simply aren't.
If you look at the staff of the various SWFs, they're mostly western citizens. There are various Arabization programs afoot, but the dearth of local talent to manage these massive pools of cash means that most of these programs are DOA. For the forseeable future, they'll be reliant on western/foreign expertise and talent to get most foreign deals done.
I suspect that the same thinking that causes them to hire cheap migrant labor to build out their infrastructure operates at a higher form where finance is concerned.
It'll be interesting to see where these programs go over the next few years.