51–60 of 88 posts
Top post HN (check), interesting title (check), innocuous title (check) -- click -- "Blocked by Security Policy" (huh?)-- .xxx domain? wtf! damnit! now i have an xxx domain logged to my corporate login... EXCELLENT. thanks. Really though... Is there some sort of clever reason why this person's blog is on a xxx domain aside from annoying people like myself stuck behind corporate proxies?
the code for the bolaño one is not so good, although the explanation improves it (i think all the others snippets give you a fair idea of what to expect in a book by the author; that really doesn't). when i first skimmed the article i got down to that section, read the code, with a list of names, and expected something french and post-modern. was really surprised when i checked back to the title to see bolaño. (if yo…
It seemed like a pretty obvious reference to 2666 to me. The first part of the book has a number of dream sequences where its characters will just list off philosophers and put them into groups and connect them with lines. Definitely took me a few days to get through that book.
Pamuk´s "Black book" is a 2 inch thick book of Istanbul streets descriptions, and... that´s it. I forced myself to finish it because I thought:"there should be something else, is not possible that all this is for nothing". I was wrong.
Top post HN (check), interesting title (check), innocuous title (check) -- click -- "Blocked by Security Policy" (huh?)-- .xxx domain? wtf! damnit! now i have an xxx domain logged to my corporate login... EXCELLENT. thanks. Really though... Is there some sort of clever reason why this person's blog is on a xxx domain aside from annoying people like myself stuck behind corporate proxies?
I am immediately suspicious of a .xxx link. Any professional writer should avoid this TLD.
This is the coding equivalent of the garage musician who says, "Don't bother me with rules — I'm playing pure emotion here, man!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that is true, what will happen is people browsing hackernews from work (in not particularly liberal work places) will not be able to read posts. Even if people choose to (incorrectly) use the .xxx extension I don't think it's going to push people to stop assuming .xxx is pornographic. edit: assuming you're not being sarcastic, can't tell.
Some people don't give a fuck about page views. I highly suspect that @fat is one of those.
Am I alone in finding this ridiculously pretentious? I got as far as the mocking olde-worlde "shakespeare" comments before giving up. Javascript is not a better language than others (in fact it's a far worse language), and it's downright insulting to put words in the mouth of someone like Hemingway to try and make yourself feel better.
This is fun. Remember fun?
If the "Closing Thoughts" express the point of his amusing and mostly well-executed exercise, then for all his skill it's a wasted effort. It's precisely "doctrine and dogma", "rulebooks and boilerplate", that make JavaScript work for group development and long-term maintainability. This is the coding equivalent of the garage musician who says, "Don't bother me with rules — I'm playing pure emotion here, man!"