Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 141 posts

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#21

Post by clix11 »

jorge_maldanado wrote: post #3

> Al Capone used something similar in the 1930s called “themugshot.com” and more recently, Martha Stewart used “itsagoodthing.com” to form her “Living” cadre. It’s practically the oldest trick in the book. I don't quite really understand this 'oldest trick in the book.'. Can anyone explain what this so called scheme is? Thank you!

Infiltrating the ranks of your enemy? Basically, if he got most of the smart people in their 20s as users of the site, it would take that longer for someone to uncover his operations. That's what Al Capone did, though I have no idea about Martha Stewart.

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#22

Post by noway421 »

allover wrote: post #11
noway421 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pure HTML y'all. No megabytes of css, no bootstrap, no webpack with plethora of dependencies to load, parse and execute. We went the other route.

Why the drive-by attacks on good tools? This kind of stuff is tiring and just adds to the noise. > No megabytes of css Why would there ever be megabytes of CSS for such a site, apart from for ads, which is the main problem with modern 'content sites'. > no bootstrap Bootstrap can be tiny, and a big win in productivity/quality, so 'no Bootstrap' likely cost the devs in its lack of availabilty at the time. It looks far…

> Why would there ever be megabytes of CSS for such a site

Bootstrap, a theme for it, app css, a couple of 3rd party vendors, and we are over a megabyte.

> a big win in productivity/quality

Only if you are doing an SPA which mimics desktop applications. Which journalism sites are usually not

>Why is that relevant for such a site? Who exactly is advocating for a 'plethora of dependencies' for that kind of website?

Well no one, but sites still do this in the wild, while being driven by business decisions rather than technical concerns, which is understable surely, but look how nostalgic people are getting.

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#23

Post by allover »

Taek wrote: post #19
allover wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it can be misused? All good tools can.

Meh. There are tools that can be misused on accident and there are tools that you have to go out of your way and have technical knowledge to misuse. And then there are tools where misuse is the default, and you have to have special or technical knowledge to use well.

So which specific tool are you laying this accusation at? Bootstrap, which has been refined into tiny Sass and Less modules, and which for people who use neither, has the customize link in its main nav?

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#24

Post by allover »

noway421 wrote: post #22
allover wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the drive-by attacks on good tools? This kind of stuff is tiring and just adds to the noise. > No megabytes of css Why would there ever be megabytes of CSS for such a site, apart from for ads, which is the main problem with modern 'content sites'. > no bootstrap Bootstrap can be tiny, and a big win in productivity/quality, so 'no Bootstrap' likely cost the devs in its lack of availabilty at the time. It looks far…

> Why would there ever be megabytes of CSS for such a site Bootstrap, a theme for it, app css, a couple of 3rd party vendors, and we are over a megabyte. > a big win in productivity/quality Only if you are doing an SPA which mimics desktop applications. Which journalism sites are usually not >Why is that relevant for such a site? Who exactly is advocating for a 'plethora of dependencies' for that kind of website? Wel…

>> Bootstrap, a theme for it, app css, a couple of 3rd party vendors, and we are over a megabyte.

Who's doing that? And if they are adding dependencies without consideration of page-speed, they're to blame, and they'll never understand performance.

Bootstrap is not the problem. Hypothetical bad devs would have been making similar mistakes with flash prior to that, or whatever alternative CSS libs were available, and were being cobbled together piecemeal prior to Bootstrap.

> a big win in productivity/quality

>> Only if you are doing an SPA which mimics desktop applications. Which journalism sites are usually not

That is false. Bootstrap's primary use-case is as a CSS framework, not something solely for SPAs. From the early days it solved cross browser issues even for supposedly simple things like 'forms' for which there were no well-established conventions beforehand. Go trawl through the BS1 & 2 issue threads around form elements, and see all the things they fixed.

> Why is that relevant for such a site? Who exactly is advocating for a 'plethora of dependencies' for that kind of website?

>> Well no one, but sites still do this in the wild [...]

So those tools don't deserve the abuse/noise.

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#26

Post by sova »

Wow, what a hysterical compendium of excellence. You know, it's optional that people use such services, and I think that once cooler shaz comes out people will drop it like it's hot, to quote a contemporary philosopher.

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#27

Post by 65827 »

terminado wrote: post #7

Jesus christ. It's so hard to believe that's only from 2004. I feel like that era transpired 40 years ago. The period of time before smartphones feels like it happened in the 1970's to me. The difference between 2000 and 2015 is so absurdly radical it begs disbelief.

It's like things are accelerating isn't it? I remember trying to convince people they should sign up for email accounts in like 1992, I remember them looking at me like I was trying to sell them on a cult. Those people staring at me were such fucking dinosaurs they lost siblings to polio. Imagine that craziness. Now I feel like if I don't have a cyberbrain by 2022 it will be a huge letdown.

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#29

Post by samplatt »

terminado wrote: post #7

Jesus christ. It's so hard to believe that's only from 2004. I feel like that era transpired 40 years ago. The period of time before smartphones feels like it happened in the 1970's to me. The difference between 2000 and 2015 is so absurdly radical it begs disbelief.

>The difference between 2000 and 2015 is so absurdly radical it begs disbelief.

The first movie I watched on my GearVR headset was called Strange Days, a 1995 film rather aptly about the introduction of Virtual Reality and how the government is involved in all sorts of dirty cover-ups. The movie was terribawesome, but it was amusing to see what 90's ideas of the future were getting right and wrong.

Though, the time between 1995 and 2015 is almost a whole generation, so I don't know why I'm surprised that I'm seeing the dreams of the past realised quite literally before my eyes. Does this mean I'm old, now?

Post reply on HN