Live data from Hacker News

The Bullshit Web

pxlnv.com

311–320 of 568 posts

Re: The Bullshit Web

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as #1 goes, I'm arguing that plaintext is the ideal to strive towards, not the living practical reality. As far as indexing and access, the Gopher protocol and Teletext are great options to look at. As previously noted, if you don't find that waste is fundamentally wrong on a moral level, there's no point forward from here. I view myself on a planet of dwindling resources, vanishing biodiversity, and warming a…

Well hold on, I don't disagree that we are on a planet of dwindling resources. It's the method of environmental improvement that will have the greatest positive effect that is the root source of disagreement. That's the crux of the problem - what is the process of solving these problems? I would argue that arguing over how big our websites are is not the important factor. I submit to you that PC electricity usage is…

In all honesty--you're right about there being bigger problems.

But let me put it this way, I still reduce, reuse, and recycle even though I know that one unconscientous suburban family will essentially dwarf my lifelong efforts in a year of their average living.

I know that those efforts are futile for the end goal of environmental conservation. That doesn't mean that I'm going to stop doing them. Being dedicated to acting in accordance with an understanding of first principles is not a bad thing, even if those actions are relatively impotent or ineffectual in and of themselves in the current moment.

As far as changing out power sources to nominally sustainable forms, yes, I would still find issue with people wasting those resources, just as I would find issue with people running air conditioners with the windows open.

As far as compassion and unintended consequences, everyone might be here for a reason and maybe trashing the planet is part of that plan, but equally so I might be here to speak against trashing the planet as a part of said reason and said plan.

It boils down again to if you need to find a reason to justify minimizing unnecessary energy usage, we're not going to see eye to eye and I doubt any argument will sway either of us towards the other's camp. Chalk it up to different contexts.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Background for anyone who hasn't read it: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

I highly recommend everyone give this a read if they haven't. It's probably the best post on Slate Star Codex.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#313

Amen to every word except this sentence. "Better choices should be made by web developers to not ship this bullshit in the first place." No developer I know, web or otherwise, wants to do any of this, and all of them are religious in their use of ad blockers and autoplay stoppers. This is the kind of stuff developers are forced to do with guns to their heads by the PMs and marketing teams that actually determine the…

I agree with all of this and just want to add that, for every developer who will speak out and crusade against "webpage pollution", there are about a dozen who will not and are viciously seeking employment. I'm often terrified of this.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 extract value from you for visiting/reading. Well, that and the fact that front-end developers just can't seem to exist without pulling in hundreds of kilobytes, or even megabytes, of JS libraries. You actually don't need all that crap to serve adv…

> "You actually don't need all that crap to serve adverts, or really even to do tracking: people managed without it in the 90s. It's just that it's more work to get the same effect without a buttload of JS in this day and age" While I sympathize with this sentiment, this is also the entire history of computing in a nutshell. Moore's Law has driven us orders of magnitude beyond where we were when personal computers fi…

(All that being said, I'm also fairly salty about having 8 GB of RAM and a mechanical hard drive rendering my computer incredibly painful to use as technology has marched on. Discord - which I use almost exclusively as an IRC chatroom with persistent while-you-were-gone chat history, embedded media, and fun custom emotes - is an entire Electron app that eats over 100 MB minimum; Firefox is eating 750 MB just keeping this single tab open while I type this. Even with no other applications but those open, Windows 10 and assorted background processes already push me to 5.7 GB allocated. Various Windows background processes will randomly decide they'd like to peg my disk usage to 100% for ten to fifteen minutes at a time, which I imagine is because spinning rust disks are considered deprecated.

I saw a discussion on HN a few months back about a survey of computer hardware, and one dev in the comments was shocked - shocked! - to find out that the typical user didn't have 16 GB and a 4k screen. That definitely rustled my jimmies a bit.)

Re: The Bullshit Web

#315
post #24

Have you ever seen this discussed outside of HN or dev-centric subreddits? Your average user doesn't care about this 'issue' at all, and thats why it won't ever change. Proof the author doesn't relate to any typical user: > I’m not asking much of it; I have opened a text-based document on the web Nobody besides devs would open a website and think "Oh this a text-based document opened in a web browser". Its a website,…

Indirectly yes, they will ask why their computer is slow. Then they'll buy a new one and accept the salespitch for fiber gbps link. ps: you all must understand that the average user believe in tech, if the web is slow, it can't be google's fault; if the salesman spread that 'of course you need a machine that is web capable' all they'll care is that it's not too expensive and they'll buy the damn machine, and maybe th…

> Indirectly yes, they will ask why their computer is slow. Then they'll buy a new one and accept the salespitch for fiber gbps link.

This evening there was that broadcast on our national radio about "white zones", I don't know if you listened to it.

The 3 guests were directors in major telecommunication organisations and administrations of the country. They discussed how high-speed Internet should be available to everyone everywhere, and they declared that there should be fibre-to-home everywhere in the country.

But in 30 or 40 minutes of broadcast I think that they did not ask themselves once: why should everyone have access to optical fibre? does everyone need it? what for? can we define what real problems and needs are? can we define a set of stuff that really matter? why do we even need a high-speed access to read and fill administrative paperwork (without paper)? what can be done to achieve the same functions with low- or medium-speed Internet for everyone, by not wasting ressources?

I mean, it is crazy to be about to pour billions in something because... just because. Without a deep analysis of what is wanted and how to solve it. They have decided on a solution, but they have not defined the problem. They pretend to solve the case of a few people who are supposedly in trouble because they cannot fill important forms, but the real use will be that Jean-Pierre-Kevin and Rayanne will watch the same American blockbuster, each one on his own tablet or smartphone, but Rayanne will start watching it 10 minutes later, killing the global bandwidth because "eh! it's free".

At my place, the Internet speed was upgraded (I don't think anyone asked for it?), as a result people started using TV-over-xDSL, VOD and streaming like pigs, and now in the evenings the speed is worse than it used to be before the upgrade...

One must question the usage that is done with the infrastructure before spending billions building it, because the general consequence is a never ending abuse of the available infrastructure, whichever capacity it has.

(For Agu: " rel="nofollow">https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/le-telephone-sonne/le-t...)

Re: The Bullshit Web

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uMatrix works on all browsers that matter.

Out of the box Android and iOS, no it does not. And that's a (the?) cash cow for online advertising.

I'll admit the mobile version of uMatrix on FF could work a lot better especially considering I have to disable and enable it in order to get it working at times. That doesn't diminish the fact that I like having the option to do so. Most of the time if I don't want to spend to much time configuring a website I just open it in Chrome.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#318
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…

> NYT employs 1,300 people.

See 2 in the article. A sample:

“As Graeber observed in his essay and book, bullshit jobs tend to spawn other bullshit jobs for which the sole function is a dependence on the existence of more senior bullshit jobs:“

I work for one of the vacation rentals

No reason private owners couldn’t be doing the work over email. But certain fetishized models of doing, in this case cloud and web apps, get the focus.

It’s all for eyeballs and buy in at scale to justify the bullshit. “Look everyone is watching us talk up this shit! Better keep justifying it, bringing them into our flock!”

It’s turned us all into corporate sycophants. Religious conviction isn’t limited to belief in sky wizards

Anything sufficiently magical to the layman will instill blind allegiance

And despite all the smart people here, life as is seems magical and there’s a lot of blind buy-in

Re: The Bullshit Web

#319

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 just loaded the New York Times front page. It was 6.6mb."

   ftp -4o 1.htm https://www.nytimes.com

   du -h 1.htm

   206K
For the author, 206K somehow grew to 6.6M.

Could it have anything to do with the browser he is using?

Does it automatically load resources specified by someone other than the user, without any user input?

Above I specified www.nytimes.com. I did not specify any other sources. I got what I wanted: text/html. It came from the domain I specified. (I can use a client that does not do redirects.)

But what if I used a popular web browser to download the front page?

What would I get then? Maybe I would get more than just text, more than 206K and perhaps more from sources I did not specify.

If the user wants application/json instead of text/html, NYTimes has feeds for each section:

    curl  https://static01.nyt.com/services/json/sectionfronts/$1/index.jsonp
where $1 is the section name, e.g., "world".

The user can use the json to create the html page she wants, client-side. Or she can let a browser javascript engine use it to construct the page that someone else wants, probably constructing it in a way that benefits advertisers.

Re: The Bullshit Web

#320

Sorry but this piece comes across as entitled and whiny. It's easy to point out how bloated and terrible most modern large sites are and guffaw in disgust at the counts of xhttp requests and scripts that are loaded in order to provide no user benefit. But just moaning about it probably won't make the problem go away. Simply rendering text isn't a business-model anymore unfortunately, and publishers are doing everythi…

>Simply rendering text isn't a business-model anymore unfortunately, and publishers are doing everything they can to actually make their content profitable.

If they can't come with a business model that works on the web then they're welcome to leave the web and go back to the printing press. The web wasn't made to provide a stable platform for monetizing content, they have literally every other media paradigm ever created for that.

Post reply on HN