121–130 of 139 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The desktop OS is a dying product. If everyone could do their work on their phones and tablets, they would. Count me out of this brave new world of tiny screens and crappy UI/UX.
With iPadOS 16.2 you’ll be able to connect your M1/M2 iPad to a big monitor via usb-c, use a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, and it’ll be just like using a laptop.
If this were true, SquareSpace would be trading way higher than they are now, Twitter wouldn't exist, and Facebook would look a lot like MySpace. My take: people created websites back then because there was no other choice. People RUSHED into MySpace when it got hot partly because of this. Many people don't care about web culture; they only care about consuming. Just like many people don't become screenwriters or dir…
I wish there was deep profound social, economic, or behavioral issues at play, but there aren’t. Some people want to build things and others just want to shout into a void or stare at those who do.
If this were true, SquareSpace would be trading way higher than they are now, Twitter wouldn't exist, and Facebook would look a lot like MySpace. My take: people created websites back then because there was no other choice. People RUSHED into MySpace when it got hot partly because of this. Many people don't care about web culture; they only care about consuming. Just like many people don't become screenwriters or dir…
> Many people don't care about web culture; they only care about consuming. Strong disagree. People want to participate, they want to be part of a conversation. When you "consume" content on Facebook or Twitter, you can produce content and reasonably expect to get an audience - because you know there's other people there. If you have your own personal website, you have no natural audience. If you're lucky, Google mig…
No, most of them don't:
> the 1% rule is a general rule of thumb pertaining to participation in an internet community, stating that only 1% of the users of a website actively create new content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk.
If this were true, SquareSpace would be trading way higher than they are now, Twitter wouldn't exist, and Facebook would look a lot like MySpace. My take: people created websites back then because there was no other choice. People RUSHED into MySpace when it got hot partly because of this. Many people don't care about web culture; they only care about consuming. Just like many people don't become screenwriters or dir…
> Many people don't care about web culture; they only care about consuming. Strong disagree. People want to participate, they want to be part of a conversation. When you "consume" content on Facebook or Twitter, you can produce content and reasonably expect to get an audience - because you know there's other people there. If you have your own personal website, you have no natural audience. If you're lucky, Google mig…
Adding a heart reaction to an Instagram post is much easier than creating that Instagram post, though Instagram has made this very easy to do as well, which is easier still than creating a YouTube video, which is easier than updating a web page on SquareSpace.
I think this is why Reddit is mostly lurkers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thanks! agreed. browsers can still talk HTTP/0.9 and HTTP/1.0 (though they largely don't want to, for good reasons) and HTML still works! i loved (LOVED) the old Internet, but time has moved on. that said, Hugo is amazing and I absolutely love it! sidebar now that I'm on this soapbox. i think this is 100% the reason why iOS and macOS will never converge. The desktop OS is a dying product. If everyone could do their w…
>browsers can still talk HTTP/0.9 and HTTP/1.0 For now. It won't be too many years before the mega-corp browsers not only drop early HTTP support but they drop HTTP/1.1 too. They'll do this in the name of "security". And then all that Chrome based browsers will support will be their very own invented and open-washed QUIC in the form of HTTP/3 and hosting a personal website visitable by a random person will not be pos…
http/3 is multiplex by default, which lends itself much better to RPC (love it or hate it), and is designed to perform much better over choppy network connections (cellular).
also there is really no good reason to not be on https these days. first, chrome uses system certificate trust stores, and OSes still ship with a healthy set of root CAs. second, LE is only popular because creating certs with literally anyone else (except the cloud providers) is expensive and a huge pain in the ass...but you can still get your own shiny cert issued by DigiCert or whomever. third, every web server has made enabling https on vhosts really easy and almost all servers run on CPUs which do hw-accelerated crypto, so performance hits are negligible these days. fourth, i would personally much rather get a SSL warning when the site I'm visiting isn't who they say they are than get a site that's modified in transit silently without me knowing.
the only thing i use http for these days are super simple local dev sites or for my dummy page for detecting captive portals.
the change that really worries me is chrome going all in on neutering adblockers through manifest v3. that feels hugely anti-consumer to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
thanks! agreed. browsers can still talk HTTP/0.9 and HTTP/1.0 (though they largely don't want to, for good reasons) and HTML still works! i loved (LOVED) the old Internet, but time has moved on. that said, Hugo is amazing and I absolutely love it! sidebar now that I'm on this soapbox. i think this is 100% the reason why iOS and macOS will never converge. The desktop OS is a dying product. If everyone could do their w…
> The desktop OS is a dying product. If everyone could do their work on their phones and tablets, they would. Count me out of this brave new world of tiny screens and crappy UI/UX.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many people don't care about web culture; they only care about consuming. Strong disagree. People want to participate, they want to be part of a conversation. When you "consume" content on Facebook or Twitter, you can produce content and reasonably expect to get an audience - because you know there's other people there. If you have your own personal website, you have no natural audience. If you're lucky, Google mig…
> People want to participate, they want to be part of a conversation. No, most of them don't: > the 1% rule is a general rule of thumb pertaining to participation in an internet community, stating that only 1% of the users of a website actively create new content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule
> The 1% rule is often misunderstood to apply to the Internet in general, but it applies more specifically to any given Internet community. It is for this reason that one can see evidence for the 1% principle on many websites, but aggregated together one can see a different distribution. This latter distribution is still unknown and likely to shift, but various researchers and pundits have speculated on how to characterize the sum total of participation. Research in late 2012 suggested that only 23% of the population (rather than 90 percent) could properly be classified as lurkers, while 17% of the population could be classified as intense contributors of content.[9] Several years prior, results were reported on a sample of students from Chicago where 60 percent of the sample created content in some form.
This sort of "1% rule" claim, and other versions of it made by others who have replied, is not a possible counterargument to my claim. Moreover, behavior isn't the same as desire. It's ridiculous to say that Trump didn't want a second term as president just because he didn't get one, and it's not less ridiculous to say that a person doesn't want to post content on the internet just because they didn't post content on your website.
But more fundamentally it goes nowhere towards the "be part of a conversation" bit. "People want to participate, they want to be part of a conversation" means that, while it is true of people in general, it is truer of people who post content. The people who post content want dialogue, so they're going to post where they can get feedback. They don't want to just speak into a void. The rest of my comment can only have made sense if it was a general truth and its application to those who actually create internet content (even just a small throwaway comment like this).
Your kind of argument simply doesn't explain the death of the private website and the growth of social networks. It also doesn't explain why what grew up is interactive networks, not news aggregators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many people don't care about web culture; they only care about consuming. Strong disagree. People want to participate, they want to be part of a conversation. When you "consume" content on Facebook or Twitter, you can produce content and reasonably expect to get an audience - because you know there's other people there. If you have your own personal website, you have no natural audience. If you're lucky, Google mig…
People want to mindlessly scroll, a very low energy form of participation. At the end of the day, a very very small percentage of the users are creating content on a regular basis. You can't ignore the things that you give up by opting into a mass scale product, privacy, security, etc... With a personal website, everything does become harder, but it ends up being your space and only your space. We've become accustome…
If you ask 1000 people that have been mindlessly scrolling for the past 3 hours if they wish they'd done something else, I'm guessing most of them would say yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People want to mindlessly scroll, a very low energy form of participation. At the end of the day, a very very small percentage of the users are creating content on a regular basis. You can't ignore the things that you give up by opting into a mass scale product, privacy, security, etc... With a personal website, everything does become harder, but it ends up being your space and only your space. We've become accustome…
> People want to mindlessly scroll, a very low energy form of participation. If you ask 1000 people that have been mindlessly scrolling for the past 3 hours if they wish they'd done something else, I'm guessing most of them would say yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>browsers can still talk HTTP/0.9 and HTTP/1.0 For now. It won't be too many years before the mega-corp browsers not only drop early HTTP support but they drop HTTP/1.1 too. They'll do this in the name of "security". And then all that Chrome based browsers will support will be their very own invented and open-washed QUIC in the form of HTTP/3 and hosting a personal website visitable by a random person will not be pos…
this is exactly what's happening and it can be concerning, but from reading the http/3 spec, i think the changes make a lot of sense. http/3 is multiplex by default, which lends itself much better to RPC (love it or hate it), and is designed to perform much better over choppy network connections (cellular). also there is really no good reason to not be on https these days. first, chrome uses system certificate trust…
The only situations where HTTP has reason to be removed entirely are government/corporate/institutional sites with a genuine risk of MITM attacks on login/etc processes. For normal websites (ie, not web applications with accounts) created by humans this makes about as much sense as wearing a bullet proof vest while on the phone; yeah, you're more secure but... it's not actually helping.