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

You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

mastodon.technology

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 318 posts

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#211

Post by renewiltord »

dragontamer wrote: post #92
waltbosz wrote: post #88

How about an extension that disables video elements until you click on them ... Like how Internet Explorer treated Java applets towards the end on their days. You could add a whitelist feature to the extension for YouTube et al. Sure, it would be nice if websites didn't do shitty UX, but as others have said, don't visit those sites. The other extension idea I had was one which would reference a database of sites know…

> How about an extension that disables video elements until you click on them ... Like how Internet Explorer treated Java applets towards the end on their days. No. Short MP4 files should replace GIFs. MP4 files are more efficient than the terrible compression GIF files have. I've made a few video game pages where auto-playing MP4s were essential at giving the right message... discussion of tactics and "movement" of…

Everyone else here is wrong and you are right. The animated GIFs (as h.264 video or whatever) were the right play here.

Safari didn't block no-sound-track video for this reason. It's a good reason.

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#212

Post by [deleted] »

yellowapple wrote: post #22

Not just news sites, either. A lot of fandom wikis run on the same platform, fandom.com. That site is a pain in the absolute fucking ass to use on any mobile device, specifically because of the autoplaying video that takes up half the screen on every page load . Weirdly, desktop is fine; no autoplaying videos or any such nonsense. It's only on mobile that Fandom has seemingly made a deliberate effort to make the user…

[deleted]

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#213

Post by mattowen_uk »

hammock wrote: post #73
throwawayboise wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's E-ZPass, FasTrak, etc. Also those toll bridges where they take a photo of your license plate and send you a bill that includes a $6 "convenience fee"

They hide ALPR everywhere. All it takes is a camera. I've seen it on the backside of normal green highway signs, where you can't see it and would never suspect it. The idea is to create a dragnet.

Here in the UK, on public roads, they are legally required to sign post that ANPR[1] is in use in that area, and the cameras have to be easily seen, AND a bright yellow colour.

The shady side of it, is on private property, like car parks, where those rules don't apply.

---

[1] Automatic NUMBER plate recognition.

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#214

Post by antisthenes »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #186
ndynan wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This pattern is purely a representation of how financially hurt news institutions are. They are desperate to make revenue and the end user experience is sacrificed in the name of keeping the ship afloat (and sometimes profit).

I'm to the point I'd like to see them go 501c3 nonprofit. Admit defeat. Get used to just making a barely livable income, like the rest of us. Stop begging. Stop the obnoxious ads. Stop the shady subscription schemes. Enough with the .99 cent for six week promos. We obviously don't value you enough to give your access to our debit cards. Newspapers you lost the war. The sooner you realize it the better. Follow the PBS…

Right. The issue is twofold - in the internet era, the marginal utility of any additional news source is near zero.

Sure, you might cross-check an article once in a blue moon, but most people consume news through a link that was sent to them by someone inside their bubble. And once they read the headline, there's 0 reason to click to another link with the same story ever again. So the links might as well be hosted in one place, say NY times or CNN. It doesn't really matter where.

The second part of the issue is that the barrier to entry into modern "journalism" evaporated with the advent of social media. You no longer need to own a printing press, or self-host a blogging platform even.

Have a twitter account? You're a journalist! Have a twitter bot that follows a bunch of local news sources? You're a newspaper! No longer do you need to own a printing press or an editorial staff. Want an "Opinion Section"? Tweet something that sparks outrage and watch angry replies pour in!

The only remaining barrier to entry is high-end investigative journalism-whistleblowing. And that's always been a tiny niche and hard to monetize.

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#215

Post by mattowen_uk »

ksherlock wrote: post #43
cercatrova wrote: post #40

Off topic, but I've never seen mastodon linked like this before on HN. Interesting this this might've normally been a link to a tweet.

It could have been a poll right here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newpoll

I can't recall the last time I saw someone use that on HN. I'm pretty sure most people don't know it exists.

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#216

Post by tux3 »

grishka wrote: post #187
onion2k wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen sites that autoplay video by implementing a JS h264 decoder that renders to a element. Developers will go to significant lengths to work around browser permissions.

That's... actually viable? You can decode h264 in real time in JS with a single thread that also runs the UI?! Sometimes I have this crazy thought that we maybe, just maybe, should undo all the JS performance optimizations in browsers. So JS again becomes the macro language for hypertext documents it's meant to be, not an "application platform".

Oh, there's worse. Some video chat apps encode in software. The magical browser APIs don't always give you enough control to do what you want with the video stream, so they just output the video stream into a hidden canvas, screenshot the canvas 20 times a second, and throw the frames at ffmpeg.js ...

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#218

Post by dragontamer »

pushrax wrote: post #191
dragontamer wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then click the button to replay the clip from the beginning if that really is your problem. But you won't. Because the clips are 5 to 20 seconds long. So its faster to just wait for the loop than even to move your hand to the mouse.

I will seek when the option is presented. It’s either tiny or nonexistent though (e.g. for gifs, or if the author didn’t enable the video controls, which default to disabled in many browsers). I’m happiest when a video loads paused, and has a giant play button on it. How are you scrolling? When I’m browsing and reading my hand lives on the mouse. On mobile it’s even easier to click to play. In either case, clicking o…

> When I’m browsing and reading my hand lives on the mouse.

My hand lives either on the space bar, or the page-down button. Both of which are far more efficient at scrolling through pages of text.

Re: You click a link to a news site, to read an article that seems interesting

#220

Post by epicureanideal »

chrischen wrote: post #207
hellbannedguy wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm to the point I'd like to see them go 501c3 nonprofit. Admit defeat. Get used to just making a barely livable income, like the rest of us. Stop begging. Stop the obnoxious ads. Stop the shady subscription schemes. Enough with the .99 cent for six week promos. We obviously don't value you enough to give your access to our debit cards. Newspapers you lost the war. The sooner you realize it the better. Follow the PBS…

I don't think tech workers are making barely livable incomes.

Many of our parents had better lives overall despite less education, fewer hours worked, shorter commuting distance, etc.

Yes, tech is better than most other jobs, but most tech jobs just give you the middle class life many people had 20-30 years ago (aside from the tech gadgets that didn’t exist 20-30 years ago that even the poor have now). In terms of large expenses and free time rather than gadgets, we’re no better than the middle class of the last generation.

Which is and should be disappointing given that it’s one of the best jobs available.

Post reply on HN