151–160 of 186 posts
After years of dormancy, a surprising new chapter in the using for layout debate emerges.
The most adept practitioners can create pixel-perfect bitmaps by minimizing column widths and row heights and tweaking background color cell by cell.
Now might be a good time to mention the band Vulfpeck's website, which is refreshingly stripped-down and no more flashy in it's design than Craigslist. Aside from it's custom typeface: https://www.vulfpeck.com/ The site is a little light on content right now because there's not much going on with the band, but going back in time you can see how crisp and functional the entire thing is, even when loaded with informati…
Until you look at the HTML source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not expecting a lot from their song writing after this statement. They are actually quite a well-known band, so you shouldn’t be so cynical. People on HN love to judge things before they know anything about it. This band has won a Grammy award, but you were content to assume the worst for trivial reasons.
A band name is not trivial. It doesn't seem they spent any time or effort thinking up a good one (unless of course there is a marketing angle here, and the name (and band?) was entirely manufactured).
I love this band. But this is actually a terrible idea. Artist websites (IMO) have an actual purpose, keeping your audience updated with tour dates for one. Agents and venues looking for promo pictures. Festival planners looking to get a sense of your style etc., Artist websites have a variety of audiences. My bet would be that they started tracking tour dates on a Google Sheet and decided to share it to a tour manag…
Band websites used to be very much about an art experience and very little about conveying any kinds of facts. Back in the early 2000s homepages of artists like Radiohead were quite avant-garde and you’d be lucky to learn anything really.
You can shorten this by eliminating the "of artists like Radiohead" from the phrasing, and it will still be true of many businesses.
You'd think that when an organization shells out money to someone so they'll grab a domain name and set up a site for them, it would be for the org to have a depository for their content just like TBL intended—and they can piggyback off the ubiquity of the Web so those resources are retrievable/accessible with pretty low friction. Weirdly, a whole industry of people specializing in e.g. Wordpress or CSS-framework-du-jour have managed to pull some sleight of hand so that the world at large doesn't have expectations that are anything like that in mind and instead thinks that the purpose should rather be little more than something like a visually stunning brochure (or billboard) that's already out of date the day it's published—and everything the business relies on to actually operate and communicate will happen either through Facebook or is created in a facsimile of a 90s-style office suite and gets shuttled around via email or Google Drive (or simply never leaves the machine where it was created).
Pretty weird fuckin' milieu (and expensive), if we're being frank.
If you click on the Tab 'FRANCES CHANGED MY LIFE' it shows that band members John and Zoe have a daughter Frances. They're raising money to fund research into Frances' rare neurological disease: "Frances has a rare genetic mutation that causes a degenerative disease called DHDDS. In the last few years, breakthroughs in medical science have made it possible to develop a treatment. Unfortunately, it's extremely expensi…
These things always make me uneasy. On the one hand, I understand they are in a very hard situation. On the other hand, donating to research into rare neurological diseases will literally save hundreds of times fewer lives than donating to "effective" charities ( https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These things always make me uneasy. On the one hand, I understand they are in a very hard situation. On the other hand, donating to research into rare neurological diseases will literally save hundreds of times fewer lives than donating to "effective" charities ( https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ )
Effective altruism has worked out pretty well, hasn’t it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These things always make me uneasy. On the one hand, I understand they are in a very hard situation. On the other hand, donating to research into rare neurological diseases will literally save hundreds of times fewer lives than donating to "effective" charities ( https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ )
Not all lives have the same subjective utility to the donor. When pressed into making a choice I think most would rather save their own child’s life than a million random children in Africa. If someone likes the band I imagine the donor would feel more utility in helping them than saving a greater amount of people they have no connection to.
The idea of effective altruism is that this is immoral, and that our instinctive behavior of being so indifferent to the sufferings of those we don't feel "close" to should be fought against.
If anyone is wondering, this looks a bit like a syndromic set of phenotypes resulting from the mutation(s) in DHDDS. The mutations are hitting a really bad part in the glycosylation pathways, where I can imagine impacts on a massive number of proteins. I’m assuming this is a hypomorph, as if you lost function of this gene completely, it’s hard to see how any cell can survive.