211–220 of 319 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
death to auto-playing video always and forever... CNN's site is especially bad about that, as I've experienced cases where I stop the "big" video at the top of the page and scroll down, only to have it start back up again when it moves to the sidebar.
That is SO annoying. When it happens I don't even read the article anymore, I just rage close the tab.
GitHub: https://github.com/mdibaiee/awesome-lite-websites
Hacker News thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15212155
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question wasn't why anyone was using Javascript on the server. The question was why a pure-text non-interactive website needs any javascript at all.
Because when you're treating React as a templating language, it's easier to let it run on the client side during development and add server rendering later.
Wow. After all these years of taking steps backwards, finally 100 steps forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's a separate site? I have no idea. It takes 30 seconds to convince yourself it's theirs, though, so I'm not sure what you're asking me.
How did you manage to convince yourself it's theirs? Why couldn't they just put it on lite.cnn.com? If you try to look up the whois for cnn.io, you only get: Registrar: CSC Corporate Domains, Inc. Registrar IANA ID: 299 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: Name Server: NS-24.AWSDNS-03.COM Name Server: NS-630.AWSDNS-14.NET Name Server: NS-1845.AWSDNS-38.CO.UK Name Server: NS-1268.AWSDNS-30.ORG…
Also, this registrar doesn't seem to provide _any_ whois contact information, is that allowed by ICAN?
This is what the world needs. Seriously, I hate this trend to bloat up websites with the rage of a thousand suns. There is absolutely no value, but it increases bandwith usage, load times and CPU/RAM usage. News websites having "fancy, modern" websites actually make me think less of them. Fuck this web-bloat shit. The web is broken.
Some publishers are seeking to create a modern version of Life magazine. What do imagine that would look like? How about National Geographic?
I love, for example, what the teams at The New York Times are doing to enhance stories with creative uses of the modern web.
The web is not broken, it’s simply revealing that this is a better way to consume breaking news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a few reasons: * To overcome government censorship and surveillance. * To stop internet providers from injecting ads and tracking scripts.
>To overcome government censorship and surveillance. But the site isn't being censored? Also https won't stop the government from knowing that you connected to those servers. I agree that we want to avoid censorship and surveillance in general, but it really doesn't seem relevant here. >To stop internet providers from injecting ads and tracking scripts. Is your ISP actually doing that to you right now? Or is that jus…
When Google first came out and we tried it there were two things we liked about it. The first: Good search results. Yeah everyone knows that right. But young people today might have forgotten the second reason we liked Google search back then: The Second: A clean page with a single logo and search field. It loaded quick. There were no banners everywhere, no bs. HackerNews has that feel. It is clean, information dense…
The Swedish public broadcaster still keeps their Teletext[0] service running. One of the cleanest way to get your news (especially on a TV where load times are zero). You can access it on the web as well https://www.svt.se/svttext/web/pages/100.html [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletext