Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The "Cheap" Web

potato.cheap

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 230 posts

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#221

Post by pvg »

arp242 wrote: post #219
pvg wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's mostly about bad faith takes The problem with that style of 'aggro paraphrase' is that it's not easy to distinguish from a bad faith take and people react to it as if it is. Plus they're often right. If you don't like the punctuation-specificity of the convention (I don't) just take it as 'don't do aggro paraphrase' and stop doing aggro paraphrase.

"Aggro paraphrase" is a rather different argument than "you're making up quotes" though, which is only a very slightly nicer way of saying "you're lying". What you're saying is essentially "your post came off as aggressive", or something to that effect. And I agree with that. And if the post I replied to had been an otherwise nice post then sure. But it's not. It's a hugely bitter, contemptuous, and insulting piece.…

is a rather different argument than "you're making up quotes" though

It doesn't matter, it's that how it's perceived.

As to the other thing, just downvote and flag comments you think are bad.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#222

Post by arp242 »

pvg wrote: post #221
arp242 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Aggro paraphrase" is a rather different argument than "you're making up quotes" though, which is only a very slightly nicer way of saying "you're lying". What you're saying is essentially "your post came off as aggressive", or something to that effect. And I agree with that. And if the post I replied to had been an otherwise nice post then sure. But it's not. It's a hugely bitter, contemptuous, and insulting piece.…

is a rather different argument than "you're making up quotes" though It doesn't matter, it's that how it's perceived. As to the other thing, just downvote and flag comments you think are bad.

Perceptions are not reality, or necessarily reasonable. And the flags are most likely due to the "Who here is the selfish and narcissistic one here?"-comment, which could indeed have been phrased as less of an accusation (even though it's the same insult/accusation that was used in the post I replied to). I would have flagged it for that.

I'm always open to criticism on, well, anything, but if you can't even side-ways acknowledge the flaming rant that I replied to for what it is then clearly our standards of "acceptable behaviour" are so different that we have little common ground.

Maybe no one should call anyone a narcissist or things like that? I shouldn't have either as I said, but that is the really the issue here as far as I'm concerned.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#223

Post by ryukoposting »

lmm wrote: post #175
ryukoposting wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't use other browsers so I can't be sure if this is widespread, but Firefox already has a "reader mode" where it cuts out ads/sidebars etc and applies its own very basic stylesheet. Markdown-over-HTTP could very easily use that preexisting frontend. > I set up my blog with that kind of mentality - I just want to write some markdown and have the browser render it whatever way it needs to I made my own blogging pl…

> I made my own blogging platform where I write Markdown, and it transforms the markdown into HTML before delivering it to the client. The only JS involved is highlight.js, and that's only loaded on posts where I specifically ask for it - the whole blog works normally with no JS at all. There are plenty of platforms that will render markdown into HTML (e.g. Jekyll); I specifically wanted to actually serve the markdow…

I've thought about adding this to my own platform. Just checking the Accept header for text/html or text/markdown, then sending them whatever they prefer. I just don't know if anyone would actually use it.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#224

Post by pvg »

arp242 wrote: post #222
pvg wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is a rather different argument than "you're making up quotes" though It doesn't matter, it's that how it's perceived. As to the other thing, just downvote and flag comments you think are bad.

Perceptions are not reality, or necessarily reasonable. And the flags are most likely due to the "Who here is the selfish and narcissistic one here?"-comment, which could indeed have been phrased as less of an accusation (even though it's the same insult/accusation that was used in the post I replied to). I would have flagged it for that . I'm always open to criticism on, well, anything, but if you can't even side-wa…

Perceptions are not reality

They matter just as much, especially on a nerd messageboard which is also not reality. The convention of not-aggro-paraphrasing-with-quotes is not aimed at your one thing, it's a result of long observation of its effects. And as I said, I don't like the weird punctuation prescriptivist part of it either but it's not really about the punctuation.

I acknowledged it's an obviously bad comment by suggesting you flag it and downvote it. It didn't really seem worth saying anything more since you pointed out the problem with replying to bad comments with bad comments yourself.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#225

Post by arp242 »

pvg wrote: post #224
arp242 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perceptions are not reality, or necessarily reasonable. And the flags are most likely due to the "Who here is the selfish and narcissistic one here?"-comment, which could indeed have been phrased as less of an accusation (even though it's the same insult/accusation that was used in the post I replied to). I would have flagged it for that . I'm always open to criticism on, well, anything, but if you can't even side-wa…

Perceptions are not reality They matter just as much, especially on a nerd messageboard which is also not reality. The convention of not-aggro-paraphrasing-with-quotes is not aimed at your one thing, it's a result of long observation of its effects. And as I said, I don't like the weird punctuation prescriptivist part of it either but it's not really about the punctuation. I acknowledged it's an obviously bad comment…

> I acknowledged it's an obviously bad comment by suggesting you flag it and downvote it.

Right so – "comments you think are bad" doesn't really sound like an acknowledgement it's an "obviously bad comment" to me, but I accept that's what you intended with it.

And I don't think "never quote anything unless it's a literal citation" is reasonable. The problem with "aggro-paraphrasing" is the "aggro", not "paraphrasing". I've paid attention to this since yesterday, and I see tons of people use citation marks for non-literal quotes in all sorts of ways, with no one objecting. Only one person who seems to object, who seems to go off on rather boring pedantics and accusations of bad faith with some regularity. This is just not a widely held view, nor reasonable.

They're just trying to make the entire world adjust to a personal pet peeve. Good luck with that.

And again, if you want to argue "your post was too aggressive": sure, that's reasonable. But "you didn't sufficiently account for a niche pet peeve": yeah nah, sorry, I can't agree with that.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#226

Post by ryukoposting »

xigoi wrote: post #187
benrutter wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard markdown referred to as unnecessarily complex before. Genuinely curious, what features / complexity would you strip out?

I’d prefer everything to have the same syntax, like in HTML (or I should better say XML). When every feature has different syntax, like in Markdown, it makes parsers much larger and leads to an extreme amount of edge cases that every parser has to handle. For example, when you see an asterisk, you have to decide whether it denotes italics, bold or a bulleted list, which might not be trivial. Generating correct Markdo…

Markdown's complexities reside almost entirely within its syntax, sure. There would have to be some kind of formal grammar, or a very, very deep suite of test cases. Without a formal grammar, you introduce risk through ambiguity. But, Markdown's scope is relatively limited, so that risk is unlikely to result in catastrophic failures (as long as you disregard that whole "embedded HTML" thing).

generating Markdown is tricky, but that's fine. In this scenario, Markdown would be hand-written and machine-read. There are plenty of use cases where Markdown wouldn't (and shouldn't) replace HTML, and "computer-generated web pages" is one of those use cases.

I think the biggest hitch would be metadata. A lot of Markdown parsers have support for a YAML header, but that behavior is heavily implementation-dependent (even relative to other markdown features). Coming to a consensus on this could get ugly.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#227

Post by pvg »

arp242 wrote: post #225
pvg wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perceptions are not reality They matter just as much, especially on a nerd messageboard which is also not reality. The convention of not-aggro-paraphrasing-with-quotes is not aimed at your one thing, it's a result of long observation of its effects. And as I said, I don't like the weird punctuation prescriptivist part of it either but it's not really about the punctuation. I acknowledged it's an obviously bad comment…

> I acknowledged it's an obviously bad comment by suggesting you flag it and downvote it. Right so – "comments you think are bad" doesn't really sound like an acknowledgement it's an "obviously bad comment" to me, but I accept that's what you intended with it. And I don't think "never quote anything unless it's a literal citation" is reasonable. The problem with "aggro-paraphrasing" is the "aggro", not "paraphrasing"…

I see tons of people use citation marks for non-literal quotes in all sorts of ways

That's why I said it's mostly about the paraphrasing and it makes sense to take it as such. Neither 'other people are doing it' (you didn't really provide an example of what 'it' is in this case) nor 'the other person started it' are all that important anyway. But if they were bad comments, hopefully you downvoted and/or flagged them.

adjust to a personal pet peeve.

It's certainly not my personal pet peeve. I've argued against it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15892780

Good luck with that.

I mean, that's how the site works already. Your comment got downvoted, flagkilled and you even got a personal moderator scolding, pretty much the maximum penalty an HN comment can get.

In general, avoiding as many standard internet battletropes (calling strangers narcissists who need to get overthemselves, aggro paraphrase, 'good luck with that', etc) as one can manage makes for better comments and better writing (on a messageboard, a very low bar to trundle over as it is).

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#228

Post by darepublic »

GTP wrote: post #191
darepublic wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that different from native apps. I'd take the imposition of a website over the imposition to download a mobile app anytime

That's actually a matter of taste: in many cases I prefer desktop applications instead.

I like desktop games of course and for coding. But for form type applications just make it web

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#229

Post by khimaros »

eitland wrote: post #178
khimaros wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm interested in the answer to this question as well and did a bunch of searching a while back to no avail. maybe the world is waiting for us to start?

I have absolutely no idea about html rendering so my only contributions so far has been to ask/suggest to people who could know. But it is an idea that I keep getting reminded about. It could work adoption wise, since if it can be done technically it can be adapted independently of everyone else on backend and frontend: - backwards compatible, if a browser doesn't take advantage of it it renders completely ordinary a…

my assumption is that this would be a strict subset of existing HTML/CSS/JS so that existing browsers would work without modification. but a small enough subset that hobbyist browsers could realistically implement the entire standard. it may make sense to look at browsers such as elinks and dillo for defining that subset.

Re: The "Cheap" Web

#230

Post by jacooper »

olah_1 wrote: post #84
jacooper wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matrix Homeservers like Synapse can run on anything now, and there is conduit which should be lighter too.

Last I checked, the way the protocol works still causes a huge amount of load for minimal usage. Because of the way events need to propagate and the types of events that propagate

I haven't seen this in my servers. I host three matrix servers and so far synapse isn't out of the ordinary.
Post reply on HN