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

Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

berkshirehathaway.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 107 posts

Re: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

#61

Post by Waterluvian »

richardw wrote: post #49
Waterluvian wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion a ton of class and prestige is lost by putting an ad on a front page. So it must yield their subsidiary huge returns to be “worth” it. Disclaimer: am not a billionaire.

Class and prestige is exactly what Buffett is not about. He does not care at all about opinions of his website. He cares only if the money goes up and credibility is maintained. Any focus on the site would be a waste of money, unless you can make a buck. Same dude loves buying hail damaged cars. This is a hail damaged website. Works fine. Sells insurance while you’re there.

That is a good point. Teacher, I’d like to change my answer.

Re: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

#62

Post by indigodaddy »

PaulWaldman wrote: post #59

Uh oh! Check out the Legal Disclaimer. >Reproduction or distribution of any materials obtained on this website or linking to this website without written permission is prohibited. Linking to this website without written permission is strictly prohibited. Really hope meesterdude obtained said required written permission prior posting.

Would seem hard to enforce or unenforceable. Was that ever even a thing where a website could disallow linking to it?

Re: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

#63

Post by JadeNB »

FormerBandmate wrote: post #45
samwillis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the web had stoped innovating and improving at this level of design it wouldn't have the GDP it does now. Your comment would almost fit better as a reply on the linked page from this other front page post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33680661

There’s a reason Geico or Duracell’s websites (both incredibly famous Berkshire companies) don’t look like this. Berkshire is essentially an unorthodox investment fund, all of their websites are pretty sparse

> There’s a reason Geico or Duracell’s websites (both incredibly famous Berkshire companies) don’t look like this. Berkshire is essentially an unorthodox investment fund, all of their websites are pretty sparse

Of course there's a reason, but that doesn't mean there's a good reason. Big commercial websites do not choose their design out of a desire best to serve their customers, but out of a desire best to attract attention and to funnel that attention towards their ends—and what a website most wants us to do is not necessarily what is best for us to do.

Re: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

#64

Post by JadeNB »

indigodaddy wrote: post #62
PaulWaldman wrote: post #59

Uh oh! Check out the Legal Disclaimer. >Reproduction or distribution of any materials obtained on this website or linking to this website without written permission is prohibited. Linking to this website without written permission is strictly prohibited. Really hope meesterdude obtained said required written permission prior posting.

Would seem hard to enforce or unenforceable. Was that ever even a thing where a website could disallow linking to it?

> Was that ever even a thing where a website could disallow linking to it?

There have been lawsuits about it! See, for example, https://www.seroundtable.com/linkage-lawsuit-15131.html (the first useful hit in a Google search for "lawsuit about linking"), and a survey article https://btlj.org/data/articles2015/vol16/16_3/16-berkeley-te... by Mark Sableman.

Re: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

#65

Post by lvass »

Waterluvian wrote: post #19
miobrien wrote: post #17

I wish more websites/companies realized how effective, practical, and beautiful this design is.

I want to make websites like this and run into the same problem every time: phones exist now. The website is illegible on my phone. I have to do some zooming and panning and it feels awful. It’s difficult to have a nice “classic web” page that runs on phones without a lot of care to use media queries. Not that that’s a deal breaker but it quickly departs from the “keep it simple” philosophy of these designs when you…

I tried it on firefox's Ctrl+shift+m, 250x300 looks bad but at 600x500 it's great. What phones are smaller than this now?

Re: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

#67

Post by eclipticplane »

Scoundreller wrote: post #51
johnywalks wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. I really enjoy 10 popups when i visit a website.

Would you like to signup for more popups? "Yes" or "Not right now"? You selected "Not right now" the last 187 thousand times in a row, but maybe today you've changed your mind.

Maybe a newsletter about popups is what you're missing.

Re: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

#68

Post by JadeNB »

samwillis wrote: post #31
shreyshnaccount wrote: post #20

This type of website, with just the addition responsive text, is how most of the internet should ideally be.

If the web had stoped innovating and improving at this level of design it wouldn't have the GDP it does now. Your comment would almost fit better as a reply on the linked page from this other front page post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33680661

> If the web had stoped innovating and improving at this level of design it wouldn't have the GDP it does now.

But maybe not everyone's priority is maximising the GDP of the web? (I'm not even sure what the 'D' there means, but I'm trying to take the comment in the spirit in which it must have been meant rather than excessively literally.)

Re: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

#70

Post by Waterluvian »

lvass wrote: post #65
Waterluvian wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to make websites like this and run into the same problem every time: phones exist now. The website is illegible on my phone. I have to do some zooming and panning and it feels awful. It’s difficult to have a nice “classic web” page that runs on phones without a lot of care to use media queries. Not that that’s a deal breaker but it quickly departs from the “keep it simple” philosophy of these designs when you…

I tried it on firefox's Ctrl+shift+m, 250x300 looks bad but at 600x500 it's great. What phones are smaller than this now?

360x640 is kind of what you have to aim for for the typical modern phone.
Post reply on HN