361–370 of 407 posts
My cousin runs a very small home-made html blog. I really like it and it gives me that early 2000s nostalgia. I'm sure he'd be psyched if some people here were to read it. https://deadvey.com https://deadvey.com/blog/index.html https://deadvey.com/blog/feed.xml
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. I see this as proof web surfing died because the Big Search Engines prefer to promote commercial entities over individual interests.
I can only imagine of Google faced the full firehose of their search traffic at your blog that most people would go broke paying their web bill. This said, I do think the bigger issue is we have pretty much 2 big search engines so there is no real competition in the market. And that those search engines are also ad companies and have a vested interest in showing ads.
I feel like Wikipedia is one thing that helped take down a lot of topic-specific indie sites or home/about pages. Before, you could make a site about anything and find it via a search engine. That was part of the exciting surprise factor of the old web. Now, Wikipedia coverage is kind of like an expected existence for a lot of things. When Google started to rank Wikipedia very highly for search terms, that was the be…
Another angle is Google's algo making people too scared to link out to other sites which was happening around the early 00's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may want https://search.marginalia.nu/ It gets mentioned here on HN quite a lot.
Wow. I see this as proof web surfing died because the Big Search Engines prefer to promote commercial entities over individual interests.
I want more people to have link blogs. I have one in the sidebar of https://simonwillison.net/ which I've been running since November 2003. You can search through all 6,836 links here: https://simonwillison.net/search/?type=blogmark I can post things to it with a bookmarklet. It has an Atom feed. It's such a low-friction way of publishing. A lot of https://daringfireball.net works like this too. I also like https://w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that's all you've been doing. But 4chan wears its infamy on its sleeve with pride (usually white pride.) The Alfred E. Neuman shtick of disaffected bemusement was stale even when Mad was published on dead trees. But go ahead and take the last laugh. You're being neither clever nor insightful here.
> Yes, that's all you've been doing. No, in the comment you've originally replied to I have clearly stated a possible explanation of why 4chan has a bad reputation. Please refrain from pointless "no u" comments, and attack my arguments instead. > But 4chan wears its infamy on its sleeve with pride (usually white pride.) 4chan is not an entity onto itself - it is composed of many individuals, that was the whole point…
I suppose the rules are trying to say that you should avoid such characterizations, but that’s a dubious rule.
Would it be ok to praise the quality of the argument? If so, it should be ok to criticize it as well. Not all arguments are as clear cut as 1+1=2, and there are other criteria by which arguments can be evaluated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find your manner of discussion obnoxious, so I will refrain from replying to you anymore. EDIT: you changed your reply to make it less obnoxious, but I won't come back to this discussion regardless.
That's funny. I'll be here still waiting on hearing which evidence will change your mind. :)
What are you trying to achieve here, exactly? Did something trigger you to start behaving in this way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, that's all you've been doing. No, in the comment you've originally replied to I have clearly stated a possible explanation of why 4chan has a bad reputation. Please refrain from pointless "no u" comments, and attack my arguments instead. > But 4chan wears its infamy on its sleeve with pride (usually white pride.) 4chan is not an entity onto itself - it is composed of many individuals, that was the whole point…
Strictly speaking, “That is idiotic” does apply to the argument, as written in the quote. It’s not a personal insult, it’s a characterization of the quality of the argument. I suppose the rules are trying to say that you should avoid such characterizations, but that’s a dubious rule. Would it be ok to praise the quality of the argument? If so, it should be ok to criticize it as well. Not all arguments are as clear cu…
> Would it be ok to praise the quality of the argument? If so, it should be ok to criticize it as well.
Why would the former imply the latter? It is ok to give gifts to people, but not to steal from them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strictly speaking, “That is idiotic” does apply to the argument, as written in the quote. It’s not a personal insult, it’s a characterization of the quality of the argument. I suppose the rules are trying to say that you should avoid such characterizations, but that’s a dubious rule. Would it be ok to praise the quality of the argument? If so, it should be ok to criticize it as well. Not all arguments are as clear cu…
The purpose of the phrase "this is idiotic" isn't to inform, but to insult. It contains no useful information whatsoever. > Would it be ok to praise the quality of the argument? If so, it should be ok to criticize it as well. Why would the former imply the latter? It is ok to give gifts to people, but not to steal from them.
It’s a claim about the nature of an argument. Do you believe it’s not possible for an argument to be idiotic?
> Why would the former imply the latter?
Because restricting speech that’s critical leads to a degradation of the quality of dialog.
Idiotic arguments exist. So do spurious arguments, disingenuous arguments, bad arguments, pointless arguments, dishonest arguments, and so on. Which of those adjectives would you like to ban when discussing the quality of an argument?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do the aol users fit? Part of the early app crowd?
If I have to fit them to the model (which tbh I don't think bears close inspection) they're the vanguard of Generation 3. AOL was the first of the walled gardens. A proto-FaceGramTok.
I love it. Though FaceTokGram rolls off the tongue easier.