81–90 of 246 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was curious so I googled him and saw he created Coffeescript, backbone.js and underscore.js. Is there part of his background I'm missing that makes this funny. Seriously I don't get it and it's bugging me :)
The backbone.js stuff was during NYT work if I recall.
But I am currently a Graphics Editor at the NYT...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That granularity exists -- it's called activeTab: https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/activeTab (Though it might not be possible to modify the referer with activeTab alone :/)
Nifty tip. Let's try it, and see if it works. Edit : Sorry bud. I gave it a shot, and `activeTab` doesn't allow you to modify the "Referer" header.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to defend the NYT craziness, but that plan somewhat exists in the weekend print edition and should save you money, too. Subscribe, check the box in your account to have them donate your paper copy to a school or library, and enjoy access on all of your devices.
I didn't see that option when I signed up a few years ago. When I look at my account now, the only place I see that option is when requesting Vacation Suspension. Do you happen to know if there's a place on the website to set this indefinitely? I guess I can call.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8109987
This time the comments seem to be mostly positive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the real "issue" here is that those paywalled content publishers want to get paid but also want the free advertising that comes with having a well indexed site. It's a pretty interesting subject in my opinion because I can easily see arguments for both sides, and if we compare it to the real world we have the exact same "issue. I can read an article that's on the newspaper's first page when it sits in the new…
>> "If there was a way for me to get what I want by paying quickly, maybe using some sort of a federated payment platform (much like downloading apps doesn't require subscribing) I'd be more inclined to pay." Isn't this what Flattr tried (and failed) to do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry to hear that, Michael. Subscription models are great, and paywalls are great. What's not so great is creating an internet where if you use our Trusted Corporate Partner™ you're allowed to view a public webpage, and if you come from anywhere less privileged on the internet, you're not. That's not sustainable. Lest we fall into a vortex where you're only allowed to browse the public web by logging in through Face…
... if you use our Trusted Corporate Partner™ No. Not like that. Basically, its Google saying publishes must do this or they won't send traffic their way (via search result / SEO) Its not publishers saying use Google over Bing over Yahoo etc. Lest we fall into a vortex where you're only allowed to browse the public web by logging in through Facebook The other argument that this may hold water is similar exceptions wh…
Links published --anywhere, not just Google-- for content behind paywalls are called ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That granularity exists -- it's called activeTab: https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/activeTab (Though it might not be possible to modify the referer with activeTab alone :/)
Nifty tip. Let's try it, and see if it works. Edit : Sorry bud. I gave it a shot, and `activeTab` doesn't allow you to modify the "Referer" header.
It would be nice if Google could make some of the Chrome permissions a bit more fine-grained. This one needs to "read and change your data on all websites", but with a better extensions architecture could be something much less scary like "read and change your data on the current website whenever you click the extension's icon".
Alternatively, it would be good if extensions could have a whitelist and/or blacklist of sites that they are enabled on, with most extensions having a default blacklist of all financial sites, banks, brokerages, email accounts, etc. Perhaps also create a way for corporations to blacklist their intranets. It makes me very nervous that if some extension owner sells out to the wrong person, suddenly they could see my pr…
Disappointed in you Jeremy. Its fair for many here to complain about some of the online advertising practices of publishers. However the viable alternative it to pivot to some form of subscription model. Its a hard transition and many orgs are making risky changes to do better. Extensions like these are a step backwards. If you value the work you should support it. See bio for usual disclaimers
I love printed media.
Printed media is also dead.
I wish this were not the case, and I know lots of folks are trying really hard to prevent its complete destruction, but heck if I can see a way forward.
Google is not the magic gateway to the internet, and sites that treat it like it is will have this happen to them, just like the sun follows rain.
I do not enjoy pointing these facts out, and I worry tremendously about the quality of journalism, writing, and online discourse. But the facts are the facts. This has been a losing battle long enough for all of us to figure out how it ends.
Disappointed in you Jeremy. Its fair for many here to complain about some of the online advertising practices of publishers. However the viable alternative it to pivot to some form of subscription model. Its a hard transition and many orgs are making risky changes to do better. Extensions like these are a step backwards. If you value the work you should support it. See bio for usual disclaimers
I'm a bit curious. I was under the impression that changing your site to show different content to "Google" than "regular users" was against TOS and could get you banned from results all together. Do big companies pay to get around these restrictions or have there been rule changes in Google Search?