Live data from Hacker News

The Bullshit Web

pxlnv.com

151–160 of 568 posts

Re: The Bullshit Web

#151
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not idiots, they just don't give a crap about waste until it affects their bottom line. (Most humans seem to operate on this principle) A lot of the business-related bullshit is a response to advertising and sales. But a lot is also lazy tech people slapping pieces together until it does a thing, and they don't care that it loads 100x more data than it needs to, because again, doesn't affect their bottom line…

Why would they care, they have to do the work of 5 in the time of one because there's now off the shelf solutions for everything. Too bad if those solutions often come bloated and incorrectly configured, maybe they should hire more engineers. Some business prioritize loading speeds but big ones with brand reputation won't care, they have little to lose.

Well then, shall we kick up more of a shit storm about it to give them a little more motivation?

If the argument is "nobody will do anything about it because nobody cares," isn't the best response"then start caring!"

I'll see if I can find some old articles I used to love about how something called something along the lines of "concerned Christians of America" basically determined what could be on television for ages because they maintained a letter-writing force of a mere five thousand people. Nobody else was kicking up that level of shit storm, so the networks listened to them.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like this rant, you should go the next step: All you need to 'fix' this is a fast loading news website that gets enough paid subscribers to earn enough margin from subscriptions that you can pay for a news staff, an office, and various overheads. That is a longish way of saying that 99.9% of the overhead in any modern web site can be traced almost entirely to the mechanisms by which that web site is attempting to e…

Hence the rant mentioning Molochian economy, under which we operate. And that reference explains in depth why this is a very hard problem. I like the rant too. Except maybe the bit about sending content at the speed of humans - I for one would like to take lightweight, bullshit-free content as fast as it can be sent, to pipe it to further processing on my end, in the never-ending quest to automate things in my life.

I mean, if you're just reducing the content even further, just request that they make the reduction possible server-side and everybody wins.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#153
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to download the typography of a physical book but it still plays a huge role in the readability and enjoyment of it. So I guess the typography of websites is "crap" because it has to be downloaded? It's a ridiculous apples-and-hammers comparison thinly veiled as an intelligent critique.

Exactly, it’s not the NYTs fault that plain text compresses well compared to jpgs. Also, is a world where he NYT is subscriber only really preferable?

This is a textbook definition of a false dichotomy. There are other distribution models for digital news services. There are other methods for transmitting digital content. It's not an either/or situation.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NYT needs to know how long you spent, on which articles, etc. They need data to produce the product and you can only achieve that with javascript tracking pixels (Server logs aren't good enough). No they don't. They really don't need to know any of that. They don't even get a pass on tracking because they're providing a free whatever - I pay for a subscription to the NYT. The business, or a meaningfully substantial…

> No they don't. They really don't need to know any of that. They don't even get a pass on tracking because they're providing a free whatever - I pay for a subscription to the NYT. The business, or a meaningfully substantial core of it, is viable without tracking. Clearly they disagree. Or maybe you should let them know that they don't need that. To say it without sarcasm, what you feel you are entitled as a paying c…

Why is that doubtful? There's all kinds of examples of tiered subscriptions in the world. I think it would be doubtful because the NYT wouldn't want to explicitly admit all the tracking they are doing.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#155
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to download the typography of a physical book but it still plays a huge role in the readability and enjoyment of it. So I guess the typography of websites is "crap" because it has to be downloaded? It's a ridiculous apples-and-hammers comparison thinly veiled as an intelligent critique.

How much of the data downloaded is actually for typography? Also, browsers have good enough typography by default, which can be controlled with CSS.

Everyone's favorite example of that kind of "brutalist" design:

http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/

Re: The Bullshit Web

#156

This is one of the reasons I like Jekyll. No PHP, no bullshit. It's fast, pre compiled pages. You can use web fonts if you like, or keep it all local. Speed usually takes a hit with websites when people try to monetize or add fancy features..

You can still add all that bullshit with Jekyll. Having sites dynamically generated has nothing to do with bandwidth waste.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. A website's value is the amount of information that it provides to the end user. I would argue that the entirety of the works of Shakespeare or the 1911 Brittanica Encyclopedia provides more information than a high-definition picture of Donald Trump grimacing at EU leaders or an autoplaying ad for Doritos Locos Tacos NEW AT TACO BELL. As far as supplemental uses, at the end of the day, people are using plaintext t…

1. Well how is the format of plaintext the best method of getting information to the end user? What if you added a thin indexing layer on top of the plaintext? That would allow people to jump through huge documents with ease, but it's no longer plaintext. Sounds more valuable to me. Where is the line? What's the ideal? 2. Fair enough 3. Referencing "increasing the entropy in the universe" isn't a good argument becaus…

> but low efficiency has no business- or environmental- downside, then why be efficient with it?

But it has. Data transfer and processing isn't free. It works on electricity. You may think that a difference between 10KB (efficient) and 10MB (current web) is meaningless because resources are abundant, and it let you save couple hours of dev time[0] - but consider that this difference is per user, and you saved a couple hours for yourself by making thousands[1] of people waste three orders of magnitude more electricity that they would if you were a bit more caring.

Like plastic trash and inefficient cars, this stuff adds up.

--

[0] - Such savings on larger pages take obviously much more work, but then this time gets amortized over all the use the website has - so the argument still holds.

[1] - Millions, for large sites.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#158
post #45

Unpopular opinion alert: Maybe the "bullshit" is only bullshit to you, the thorny tech-savvy reader. Maybe businesses have tried the plaintext approach, and their business was improved by adding fonts, stylesheets, API calls, spinners, scripts, high-res images, and god knows what else. Maybe speed improvements are not important beyond a certain point. Maybe 5MB doesn't matter to most people. Maybe micro-optimization…

[deleted]

Re: The Bullshit Web

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYT needs to produce and recommend content that people find engaging to continue earning their subscription dollars. The idea that tracking is purely or primarily there to support a business model of selling user data is a strawman invented by self-righteous HNers. You need to know what parts of your product are effective to make it competitive in today’s marketplace.

90% of that can be accomplished with server-side stats. Do you really need to track mouse movements and follow readers with super-cookies across the web to find out what articles people find engaging on your site? > The idea that tracking is purely or primarily there to support a business model of selling user data Purely, no. Primarily? You can bet your sweet ass.

I agree in general but there are some things which I don’t see going away any time soon that publishers need. Online advertisers want to know that their ads are being viewed by a human and not a bot, and that they were on screen for long enough and that the user didn’t just scroll past. Publishers want to know how far down you make it in their article, so they know where to put the ads in the body of the article.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#160
post #21

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Moby Dick is 1.2mb uncompressed in plain-text. That's lower than the "average" news website by quite a bit--I just loaded the New York Times front page. It was 6.6mb. that's more than 5 copies of Moby Dick, solely for a gateway to the actual content that I want. A secondary reload was only 5mb. I then opened a random article. The article itself was about 1,400 words long…

I don't think thats a meaningful comparison. Moby Dick is a book, written by 1 guy and maybe an editor or two. NYT employs 1,300 people. When you read a book all you get is the text. NYT has text, images, related articles, analytics, etc. Moby Dick doesn't have to know what pages you read. NYT needs to know how long you spent, on which articles, etc. They need data to produce the product and you can only achieve that…

The New York Times existed for 145 years from its founding in 1851 to the creation of its website in 1996, and it got by just fine without tracking pixels in all those years.
Post reply on HN