21–30 of 33 posts
Title is misleading, isn't it? It looks like the debugging symbols were dumped with code written in C and then reformatted with a small node.js script.
"Carmageddon 1 debugging symbols dumped" Seems fine here.
"Watcom"... Now that's a name I haven't heard in a looong time. Watcom was awesome. Or rather DOS/4GW was. You could do malloc(1024*1024) and it would just miraculously work!
Real mode to Protected mode is like Water to Wine
Another website that doesn't render text at all with JS disabled. Fail.
Another website that doesn't render text at all with JS disabled. Fail.
I disabled JS and the page looks fine. Either way, this seems like a complaint unrelated to the content of the page, your personal preference, while valid, doesn't make this content any less interesting.
I don't expect all here to agree with my viewpoints, or even agree with the statements I make (though I'll reassert: the page failed to load until I allowed JS temporarily from the primary domain). But I'll comment on:
⚫ Sites which fail without JS
⚫ Sites with horribly broken UX/UI
⚫ Sites with poor contrast: http://www.contrastrebellion.com/
⚫ Sites with poor privacy or other features
⚫ Sites with crippled access (e.g., Quora or Scribd)
⚫ Sites with broken or unusable multimedia (I've just spent more minutes than I care trying to view a WashPo-related science video...)
Thanks for your kind thoughts and concern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disabled JS and the page looks fine. Either way, this seems like a complaint unrelated to the content of the page, your personal preference, while valid, doesn't make this content any less interesting.
HN is a technical news site, and technical commentary on the aspects of given sites are fairly common. I don't expect all here to agree with my viewpoints, or even agree with the statements I make (though I'll reassert: the page failed to load until I allowed JS temporarily from the primary domain). But I'll comment on: ⚫ Sites which fail without JS ⚫ Sites with horribly broken UX/UI ⚫ Sites with poor contrast: http:…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN is a technical news site, and technical commentary on the aspects of given sites are fairly common. I don't expect all here to agree with my viewpoints, or even agree with the statements I make (though I'll reassert: the page failed to load until I allowed JS temporarily from the primary domain). But I'll comment on: ⚫ Sites which fail without JS ⚫ Sites with horribly broken UX/UI ⚫ Sites with poor contrast: http:…
Fair enough, my main point was that it looks like it loads exactly the same with JS disabled compared to without it being disabled, my additional commentary was tangential, but if we're all complaining about stuff, can't I too? :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough, my main point was that it looks like it loads exactly the same with JS disabled compared to without it being disabled, my additional commentary was tangential, but if we're all complaining about stuff, can't I too? :)
It's possible (I haven't checked) that enabling/disabling JS caches content that's required to view the page. Which is another reason I really hate QAing / capability / compatibility testing websites.