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

The "Cheap" Web

potato.cheap

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 230 posts

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#211

Post by anon25783 »

flir wrote: post #168
GuB-42 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gemini is like modern Gopher, but it is also very opinionated. The protocol does not support extensions and revision, it refuses HTTP, mandates TLS, etc... That's not the same as having browsers support the markdown content type.

You might disagree about where to draw the line but you can see why they drew a line in the sand. text/markdown would very quickly grow to be everything HTML is. There's probably a pithy "every internet protocol expands until it can serve ads" lesson in there somewhere.

I like your pithy remark! I'm calling that "Flir's Law" from now on, after your username.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#212

Post by pvg »

arp242 wrote: post #186
dang wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not listed at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html but there is a convention on HN of asking users not to use quotation marks to make it look like they're quoting someone when they're actually not. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

But I didn't "make it look like I'm quoting someone" because I don't think anyone in good faith would interpret it as such. A quick look at your list shows that it's mostly about bad faith takes, and the problem there is bad faith takes and not quotation marks. This kind of usage of quotation marks is also pretty common on HN by the way, as it is in the rest of the world – just on the first page of my "threads" I see…

it's mostly about bad faith takes

The problem with that style of 'aggro paraphrase' is that it's not easy to distinguish from a bad faith take and people react to it as if it is. Plus they're often right.

If you don't like the punctuation-specificity of the convention (I don't) just take it as 'don't do aggro paraphrase' and stop doing aggro paraphrase.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#213

Post by flir »

anon25783 wrote: post #211
flir wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might disagree about where to draw the line but you can see why they drew a line in the sand. text/markdown would very quickly grow to be everything HTML is. There's probably a pithy "every internet protocol expands until it can serve ads" lesson in there somewhere.

I like your pithy remark! I'm calling that "Flir's Law" from now on, after your username.

I just stole it from jmz - "every program attempts to expand until it can read mail" - I think attribution might be overkill. But thanks for the thought.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#214

Post by jerf »

radiator wrote: post #124
jerf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem you have is that by defining a "FUN" standard, you've probably created a basin of attraction [1] for what is basically the web today. It doesn't take much before you've basically let the ocean in. There are clearly many points between Gopher/Gemini and the modern web... but I'm not sure any of them are stable . Between the difficulty of keeping out features in a principled manner in what will inevitably b…

This is very deep. I like this mathematical explanation of why we get either Gemini, which nobody uses, or the modern web.

When people say math doesn't matter and is useless, I see it as rather akin to standing in Adam Savage's workshop and wondering why he has collected so much useless stuff and proudly declaring their inability to understand or utilize the contents.

As a bonus, here's another IMHO highly underrated gem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution Not only are there characteristic patterns intrinsic to evolution (in all its forms, far beyond just biology), there are characteristic patterns to interacting evolving systems. And that's, like, basically everything in the world. Super useful tool.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#215

Post by d-lisp »

nottorp wrote: post #194
d-lisp wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I don't understand what you're referring to: are you intentionally visiting websites "you hate" ? I mean, there are a lot of good websites out of here that aren't proposing an experience and that allows you to read text properly, no ?

When I search for something I visit whatever I can find, no? Until I find what I'm looking for.

I may be biased but whenever I search something I go to whatever website that has an authority on X. When I don't know I who has authority on X I search for "recommendations about X", or I go to the website in charge of X. The only problem I encounter generally and recurrently is not js being an obstacle to find information but rather badly written anti-content.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#216

Post by d-lisp »

d-lisp wrote: post #215
nottorp wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I search for something I visit whatever I can find, no? Until I find what I'm looking for.

I may be biased but whenever I search something I go to whatever website that has an authority on X. When I don't know I who has authority on X I search for "recommendations about X", or I go to the website in charge of X. The only problem I encounter generally and recurrently is not js being an obstacle to find information but rather badly written anti-content.

Replace X with Y since X is a thing.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#217

Post by eternityforest »

The web is already fast and performant on all devices from the last five years, and does not seem to be getting slower. Moore's law and optimizations caught up, performance is good enough for me, I won't complain as long as nobody messes it up.

I do absolutely agree we need more accessibility and more sites that aren't endless scrolling trash. I don't think we need old fashioned simple HTML to do it, although that's certainly one of the tools that can be used.

I think we mostly need more things like neocities that make it actually easy and maintenance free to set up a site. To me the important part of the old web was the content and the people, not the tech.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#218

Post by logtempo »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #170
logtempo wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

States like to control, internet state of mind is 100% liberal, and both live in a capitalist world. Internet won its freedom, but freedom did not overcome the greed from capitalism. Good news is you can still go to mastodon, after all.

> Internet won its freedom I'm gonna need a real big citation on that. If by freedom you mean what a lot of people mean, which is that it opens potential revenue streams and markets and the oppression has it's origins in capital holders, then sure. "Freedom" in it's modern vernacular tends to mean this, hence "bringing freedom to Iraq" actually meaning "making sure Iraq's oil and other assets are open to exploitation…

By the liberalism/capitalism definition: anyone can make its website, its app, its blog etc.

Which is the opposite of "we need an official social network" intervention

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#219

Post by arp242 »

pvg wrote: post #212
arp242 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I didn't "make it look like I'm quoting someone" because I don't think anyone in good faith would interpret it as such. A quick look at your list shows that it's mostly about bad faith takes, and the problem there is bad faith takes and not quotation marks. This kind of usage of quotation marks is also pretty common on HN by the way, as it is in the rest of the world – just on the first page of my "threads" I see…

it's mostly about bad faith takes The problem with that style of 'aggro paraphrase' is that it's not easy to distinguish from a bad faith take and people react to it as if it is. Plus they're often right. If you don't like the punctuation-specificity of the convention (I don't) just take it as 'don't do aggro paraphrase' and stop doing aggro paraphrase.

"Aggro paraphrase" is a rather different argument than "you're making up quotes" though, which is only a very slightly nicer way of saying "you're lying". What you're saying is essentially "your post came off as aggressive", or something to that effect.

And I agree with that. And if the post I replied to had been an otherwise nice post then sure. But it's not. It's a hugely bitter, contemptuous, and insulting piece. "Don't respond to bad posts with bad posts" as Dan would say and sure, I agree with that too, and I typically don't, but it really wasn't that bad in this context. Let's be real: calling people "narcissistic" for being a bit playful with some layout is not exactly in keeping with the spirit HN's guidelines, is it?

I know you're just an innocent bystander here, but ranting and raving and insulting but then insisting on impeccable behaviour from others is one those flaming hyper-toxic behaviours that destroys, well, everything. Actually I'd argue this is at the root of why Twitter is such a dumpster fire because everyone seems to insist on being an asshole while calling out others for ... being an asshole.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#220

Post by nottorp »

d-lisp wrote: post #216
d-lisp wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be biased but whenever I search something I go to whatever website that has an authority on X. When I don't know I who has authority on X I search for "recommendations about X", or I go to the website in charge of X. The only problem I encounter generally and recurrently is not js being an obstacle to find information but rather badly written anti-content.

Replace X with Y since X is a thing.

> I go to whatever website that has an authority on X

But what do you do when the website gives you an 'experience' instead of info about X?

And no, has no right to take X for themselves. Keep using it for unknown/unspecified items.

Post reply on HN