Cannot open the submission. HN hug of death?
I inspected the mastodon.social website
31–40 of 50 posts
Re: I inspected the mastodon.social website
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree this is BEM, not SASS nesting. I dislike BEM because it requires modification of CSS classes to change how something looks - you add and remove classes to your `.login-box` to make it bigger or bluer or wider. I prefer CSS auto-nesting (using Svelte) or SASS nesting (for older projects) so I can just modify my `.login-box` to add whatever styles it needs and not touch my HTML.
Please read my comment above, also here's how the above "nesting" compiles to: .compose-form .compose-form__modifiers .compose-form__upload-description input::placeholder { opacity: 1; }
Who need easy to read post-build selectors in the age of source maps? Much better to have a file that is easier to read before the build.
Re: I inspected the mastodon.social website
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Free speech zone": a place where it's okay to promote e.g. National Socialism because the argument is that open discussion is more important than people's sensitivities or the denazification laws of Germany/France/etc. It blocks hate speech, as clearly mentioned in that link.
Yes, I read that. That massive (and likely deliberate) mischaracterisation of free speech is exactly what the comment you're replying to is objecting to. > it's okay to promote e.g. National Socialism Not, it's not OK. If you promote Nazism I'll point out you're an idiot and so will most right minded adults. Something being not banned in not the same thing as it being 'OK'.
Note that it's quoted, in contrast to the other definitions. This is presumably in reference to the abuse of "free speech" rhetoric by neo-Nazis and the like (who typically do not value freedom of expression beyond their own views), rather than tootcafe making that claim about free speech. Maybe that presentation is too subtle to get the point across to most people, but I think it's a valid distinction to make.
Re: I inspected the mastodon.social website
#34This is what Sass files do to your CSS files if you abuse nesting Aren't they just using BEM, which is a quite popular css methodology? I don't see how this is a bad thing.
I'm not saying using BEM is a bad thing. Not at all, I'm using it too and like how it plays with Sass/scss. e.g. I do like how Sass makes it easier to write BEM-like code similar to the below: // style.scss .btn { ... &--success { ... . } } // style.css .btn {...} .btn-success {...} But when abusing Sass nesting and choosing a weak naming convention, the resulted CSS selectors can go wild. Here's an example: https://…
Is output verbosity a problem? Narrower selectors are easier to reason about and faster to process, and compression should take care of most of the size difference, since it's so repetitive.
Re: I inspected the mastodon.social website
#35[deleted]
Re: I inspected the mastodon.social website
#36Nice review, I will consider some of those things when building sites now. After reading your post and then reading more stuff, it appears that Mastodon is going to become the Gab.ai for Leftists. Which seems to be ironic in a way. The internet cannot be controlled if it is to remain free and open. Creating censor lists like this here https://github.com/tootcafe/blocked-instances ,is no different to traffic shaping t…
This is as old of a question as the internet, or as the humanity itself.
Not every place or discussion forum is a place to discuss anything or everything; some are thematic and that has to be respected.
It's not a problem if someone creates a BBS-like thing for themselves.
It's as much of a right as speaking publicly at Hyde Park -though even that has rules: "as long as the police consider their speeches lawful."[1]
It is a different issue if people refuse to research other opinions, but there is a significant difference in educating this to be the default approach and between forcefully presenting it out of the blue.
[1]: https://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/hyde-park/things-to-see-...
Re: I inspected the mastodon.social website
#37I didn’t understand the paragraph about CSS reset. As in, it was poorly written:
> Personally, I like to preserve useful defaults instead of clearing everything with a CSS Reset. A tool like normalize.css, comparing to the classic CSS Reset helps to learn how elements are meant to display actually.
OK, the thumbs-down and the first sentence give me the clue that you don’t like CSS reset (although I still have no idea what is meant by “useful defaults”, or how you might selectively preserve them from the presumably non-useful ones without a normalizing technique).
The second sentence breaks my english parser. It seems to be saying normalize.css is good, but this seems to contradict the thumbs-down and the first sentence.
Help!
Re: I inspected the mastodon.social website
#38I didn’t understand the paragraph about CSS reset. As in, it was poorly written: > Personally, I like to preserve useful defaults instead of clearing everything with a CSS Reset. A tool like normalize.css, comparing to the classic CSS Reset helps to learn how elements are meant to display actually. OK, the thumbs-down and the first sentence give me the clue that you don’t like CSS reset (although I still have no idea…
I think they recommend using normalize.css instead of resetting styles.
Re: I inspected the mastodon.social website
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thumbs down was meant to be for the use of an icon font nowadays, in this case, FontAwesome. Don't get me wrong, I'm still using FontAwesome for many projects. The thing is there are so many good reasons to use an SVG icon font system nowadays: pure vector, control over the individual shape symbols, positioning is easier thanks to knowing its exact size etc.
I just tried out Mastodon quickly after reading this, and what a disaster. Icons are overused, there's no onboarding of the UI and it just throws you in with a bunch of icons, I wasn't sure what most of them did. I started at mastodon.technology and it immediately follows the instance creator which confused me, when I checked his profile there was an icon with which I could unfollow(an X on top of a person icon), whi…
Those UX issues would be far more useful being reported on GitHub than they are on HN.
Re: I inspected the mastodon.social website
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m 100% behind the idea that instances should be able to refuse to carry (literal) nazi propaganda (read the footnote; this is what we are talking about here. I agree that isn’t great wording though). Isn’t that the whole idea of federation? Instances can do what they want? Also Nazism is a threat. I have Jewish and gay friends and Nazis want them executed.
> I have Jewish and gay friends and Nazis want them executed. Same here. Wanting someone executed is already covered by banning threats, as mentioned in the comment you're replying to. Removing unwanted speech which isn't threatening isn't necessary. The most likely outcome of blocking free-speech nodes is control of conversation, eg, deeming supporting national borders as 'hate speech'. Which is fine if you want tha…
> The most likely outcome of blocking free-speech nodes is control of conversation, eg, deeming supporting national borders as 'hate speech'.
Why would that be the most likely outcome? I'm pretty sure that "deeming supporting national borders as 'hate speech'" is a fringe position, which would be unlikely to take over a popular instance. Even if it did, people whose posts about national borders are deleted could easily move to another instance with a different policy.
Filtering what you see and share with others isn't inherently wrong. Sure, if I'm on an instance that considers national borders equivalent to hate speech, I might lose out on interesting discussions about that topic. But if I'm not (and that's much more likely), then I won't be bothered by strangers reacting angrily to my posts they see as hate speech, because they'd be blocking me instead.
I think the upsides of not seeing what I don't want to see outweigh the downsides of not seeing everything, given that there's too much content to see everything anyway.