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

Replying to comments about our web page design

research.exoticsilicon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 211 posts

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#91

Post by prmoustache »

pflanze wrote: post #66

This site eats about 50% CPU on Firefox (on an older laptop) for every page that is open at the same time, and it continues to eat 50% after closing all pages. It doesn't use JavaScript and no visible CSS animations, so what is it? Apparently, the favicon! Which, as explained on the linked page, "is SVG, (with S.M.I.L. animation)". Since the favicon is still listed on the list of favourites on the browser start page,…

- On edge on linux (yes) cpu process usage increase as well, but not as much.

- On chromium cpu usage do not evolve but it is not animating the favicon.

If you want to disable it on firefox and are using ublock origin, you can do so by going to the ublock origin dashboard --> My Filters and add the following line:

||research.exoticsilicon.com/images/icon.svg

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#93

Post by whalesalad »

pflanze wrote: post #66

This site eats about 50% CPU on Firefox (on an older laptop) for every page that is open at the same time, and it continues to eat 50% after closing all pages. It doesn't use JavaScript and no visible CSS animations, so what is it? Apparently, the favicon! Which, as explained on the linked page, "is SVG, (with S.M.I.L. animation)". Since the favicon is still listed on the list of favourites on the browser start page,…

you just need a bigger cpu, so that the site uses less.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#94

Post by nraynaud »

bombcar wrote: post #76
lelanthran wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as someone could surely argue our brains are just AI and/or ML but in organic form. Our brains are artificial intelligence? Humans are machine learning? I mean, c'mon. If humans are artificial, then what do you call real? If humans are machines, then what on earth isn't?

I could see an argument that a test tube baby might be something like a human created by artifice.

good luck with that, it's pure natural DNA and pure natural gestation and pure old-school education. only the fecondation was provoked.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#96

Post by schnable »

pflanze wrote: post #66

This site eats about 50% CPU on Firefox (on an older laptop) for every page that is open at the same time, and it continues to eat 50% after closing all pages. It doesn't use JavaScript and no visible CSS animations, so what is it? Apparently, the favicon! Which, as explained on the linked page, "is SVG, (with S.M.I.L. animation)". Since the favicon is still listed on the list of favourites on the browser start page,…

Ask the Firefox team this question!!!!!!!

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#97

Post by prmoustache »

midenginedcoupe wrote: post #53

Reminds me of Lings Cars: https://www.lingscars.com/ Not a niche or hobbyist website, but a genuine car leasing company. Who's owner deliberately styled the site like this to act as a differentiator in a crowded market. It's certainly unique, I'll give them that.

That website is just perfect.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#98

Post by frankfrankfrank »

Can’t really argue with most of their logic. The site is fast and responsive. I did get a sense that most if the criticism is really based on anxiety about the authors own position, i.e., a buzzword internet startup type is of course going to feel panic if it is highlighted that their fancy designs and site that is heavily reliant on violating people’s privacy and security bogs down the site and the whole internet with it. It’s typical crabs in a barrel nitpicking.

And yes, I realize I just upset many sensibilities here.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#99

Post by nkrisc »

Couldn't actually read for very long. The content scrolling over the static background image gave me motion sickness.

The 1980s theme was the only one I could stand, and the 1990s theme appears to be the same as the Tropical Days theme. All the ones with the background are essentially unusable for me.

It's their site, they can do whatever they want, but it's a bit silly to act like there's something wrong with anyone who has a problem with it. For example, in the default theme the yellow text (#FFFF00) with the pink highlight (#FF00FF) fails WCAG contrast requirements across the board.

Maybe the really don't care whether everyone has an easy time reading their site or not, and that's their choice, but I find the snark about it off-putting. It's not difficult to design a site that's easy for everyone to read.

> But anyway, most of the material published on our research website is also available in gemtext format via our gemini server.

Might be the only way I'd read this site.

Re: Replying to comments about our web page design

#100

Post by zagrebian »

AlexandrB wrote: post #81
zagrebian wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you actually know someone who can't read the text, or are you concern trolling? The author of that website claims that they’ve seen multiple comments that complain about headaches and eyestrain. This is the first item in the FAQ, which suggests that it’s one of the most common complaints. > There are 10 themes. do all of them make any one person's eyes bleed? The theme selector is at the bottom of the page. It’s…

So the answer is no, you don't know anyone who can't read the text. People post all kind of things online, especially hyperbole. As one of the other FAQ questions notes a lot of people also complain about their eyes bleeding, but this has never actually happened.

When users complain about headaches and eyestrain, it’s probably better to take them seriously.
Post reply on HN