111–120 of 213 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NPR version though ... https://twitter.com/alexhern/status/1000000898289033216
Rather than linking to another insidious "social media platform," would it be possible to simply describe what is there? Many of us have sworn off Twitter, FB, Google, youtube, etc. because we don't care for the tracking, nor do we care for regulations. Unfortunately, we miss out on many things when people insist we participate on those sites by merely linking to them as part of a discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NPR version though ... https://twitter.com/alexhern/status/1000000898289033216
Rather than linking to another insidious "social media platform," would it be possible to simply describe what is there? Many of us have sworn off Twitter, FB, Google, youtube, etc. because we don't care for the tracking, nor do we care for regulations. Unfortunately, we miss out on many things when people insist we participate on those sites by merely linking to them as part of a discussion.
Websites can be "documents" or they can be "apps". It's great that we now have the option to build the latter, but far too many things that should be simple documents (news sites, I'm looking at you) are trying to be apps, and it's virtually always a worse user experience, setting aside the cost in load time, memory, and battery usage. I'm saying this as a JavaScript developer.
The market has spoken. No seriously, if it sucks so much, why haven't users responded by going somewhere else, thus incentivizing sites to behave well?
Websites can be "documents" or they can be "apps". It's great that we now have the option to build the latter, but far too many things that should be simple documents (news sites, I'm looking at you) are trying to be apps, and it's virtually always a worse user experience, setting aside the cost in load time, memory, and battery usage. I'm saying this as a JavaScript developer.
The market has spoken. No seriously, if it sucks so much, why haven't users responded by going somewhere else, thus incentivizing sites to behave well?
The market isn’t magic, and the market we actually have is far from free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new Reddit React site hijacks right-click so you can't even open your responses/user page in a separate tab. Fail. This is how Slashdot.org lost their user base. Who in their right mind would use React for a content-based site? But reddit seems to know they suck at websites: you can still access " rel="nofollow">https://old.reddit.com/r/ and even /.compact" rel="nofollow">https://old.reddit.com/r/ /.compact for t…
> Who in their right mind would use React for a content-based site? People who are also writing content-based apps and want to write once but still obtain native speeds on mobile? The lack of right-click functionality is just bad design, not React's fault.
React is fine for browser-based line-of-business (and I guess also collaboration) apps; for content, not so much because you have to go through hoops to parse content into React's vdom [1].
[1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50420248/how-to-parse-a-...
How do you think free sites pay for producing all that valuable content? I find it astonishing that most people seem to think having access to news for free is almost a right. If you had taken their paid subscriptions they'd have served you a less add riddled version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Th EU should make a law requiring HTML versions of pages with no JS. Having politicians and lawyers micromanage technology decisions for the entire Internet? What could possibly go wrong.
Couldn’t get any worse? The Internet is basically unusable today.
Now compare that to the extra electricity required for everybody undergoing the horrible experience of 80 poorly written trackers and ads constantly overloading each tab in a web browser.
This reminds me of the American budget. Cut the funding for Planned Parenthood and the Arts but we need a hundred new tanks!