23 ms·
Do nice guys come second?
- CapitalistCartr 10y ago"Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website."
- ux-app 10y agowelcome to 2016
- paraxisi 10y agoWhat ever happened to fail gracefully?
- y0ghur7_xxx 10y agoIf you cripple your browser some websites will break. Don't expect site owners to make them work just for you. Fail gracefully was over the moment the "disable javascript" checkbox was removed from the options menu in every major browser.
- douche 10y agoMy Chrome still has a radio button (admittedly not a checkbox...) that will disable javascript on all sites. There's a distinction to be made between content sites and application sites. It's really just too much work to try to make an application fall back to plain HTML, but for a content-centered site, like a blog, a news site, etc, it's not that hard to do things right and not require JS.
- chongli 10y agoIn this case, the site owner is deliberately sabotaging non-JavaScript users in order to get them to run ad-tracking and analytics. There isn't actually a good-faith reason to require JavaScript here.
- coldtea 10y ago>In this case, the site owner is deliberately sabotaging non-JavaScript users All 10 of them?
- Sacho 10y agoThe site owner profits from showing ads. There's little business reason for them to show ad-less pages to users. What does good faith have to do with it? They're not assuming you'll hack them or steal their content, it's a matter of business.
- wtbob 10y ago> If you cripple your browser some websites will break. A browser which doesn't implement JavaScript is not crippled; it is 100% functional. A web page which requires JavaScript is crippled, because JavaScript is not required in order to display text and images.
- _0ffh 10y agoIt's the website that's crippled - and intentionally so!
- coldtea 10y agoOpportunity cost happened.
- mhurron 10y agoYou can't run ads or track your users that way.
- chinathrow 10y agoYes you can, actually. It's just more work to set it up properly but you absolutely can track user easily server side and you can serve ads without JS just fine.
- marcosdumay 10y agoBut you can't automatically relay those capabilities to untrusted 3rd parties. And that's where the money is.
- chinathrow 10y agoCan you elaborate on there the money is exactly? Is it in selling data points about your visitors?
- marcosdumay 10y agoIt is in running 3rd party trackers on your site.
- oolongCat 10y agohttps://web.archive.org/web/20160729111939/https://www.1843magazine.com/features/do-nice-guys-come-second https://web.archive.org/web/20160729111939/https://www.1843m...
- awalGarg 10y agoIf you use some style injector plugin (like stylish), you can add this for that page: #seckit-noscript-tag { display: none; } and it works fine... (or you can remove the matching div from the web inspector if you are using a browser which has one). Aside: That one element is blocking an entire working page for no reason. Where oh where has web dev come to :'(
- FreeFull 10y agoFirefox's reader mode also works
- erelde 10y agoIsn't reader mode effectively an adblocker and no-javascript mode ? That will parse the html and return only what it detects as the divs you want to read ?
- UweSchmidt 10y agoObviously it won't block js if js is technically required to render the page, leaving you open to security risks and compromising your privacy.
- erlehmann_ 10y agoIt probably is not “for no reason” – the reason is that the page contains advertising and tracking scripts. The page owner is even willing to lie (pretending that JS is necessary is a flat-out lie if the page works fine without any JS features) so that users enable JS and run those. In 2013, I created a program to visualize what hosts a web site notifies when it is loaded http://daten.dieweltistgarnichtso.net/src/list-web-bugs.py http://daten.dieweltistgarnichtso.net/src/list-web-bugs.py – you can see the output for the article here: http://daten.dieweltistgarnichtso.net/pics/graphs/web-bugs/www.1843magazine.com-web-bugs.png http://daten.dieweltistgarnichtso.net/pics/graphs/web-bugs/w...
- gluelogic 10y ago
- toomanythings4 10y agoLess than 2% of all web users have javascript turned off. Some say it's less than 1% and it's mostly people who understand the consequences of doing so. Turning off the native component of anything always has consequences for those tinkering under the hood and the vast majority of those visiting that site don't tinker under the hood. As the owner of a web dev company, I sometimes consider ignoring the "must work even without javascript" mantra. I haven't yet but there are times.
- epimetheus 10y agoMy inner pedant screams at this kind of message. If I'm seeing this message, I've already visited the website.
- EGreg 10y agoThey say nice guys finish last. I say, that's why their women love them! ;-)
- colmvp 10y agoAs mentioned in the article and countless times on HN: Many people in Silicon Valley are biased against Lyft because they think that ride-sharing will be a winner-takes-all market. They are probably wrong. Once a ride-sharing company gets to a certain level of reliability and waiting times are short enough, there is little benefit to using one service over another. Uber and Lyft will both be able to claim a lead in lots of cities, and both will be around for a while. Furthermore, if you live in a city with both, it's not uncommon to talk with drivers who work for both services. I will also add that the need for expansion has toned down the quirkiness of Lyft from when they first out a few years back. The giant furry mustache was replaced. No more fist bumps. And the drivers I encounter are generally less talkative and charismatic. That's not meant to criticize the company, but AFAIC, there is just a lot less separating the two companies. So playing it slow and sane might be second in the long run, but if they keep expanding I don't see them not eating into Uber's market and climbing their way up. Well, unless of course Uber's investment into driverless cars is able to come to fruition within our lifetime.
- Declanomous 10y agoI have no idea what the situation is like in the rest of the country, but Lyft seems to do pretty well in Chicago. The drivers I speak to tend to use both Lyft and Uber, but prefer Lyft overall; Lyft allows tipping, and Uber customers are allegedly pickier. I'd say most people I know use one or the other exclusively. I think Uber actually tends to be cheaper at busier times than Lyft if you tip when you use Lyft. The average Uber vehicle seems newer than Lyft vehicle as well. Either way, I don't think Lyft is at much of a competitive disadvantage in Chicago, at least in the 20-something crowd. The older individuals I know are much more likely to use Uber exclusively, and use the features that are not present in Lyft, like calling a standard taxi, or Uber Black. It's all anecdotal of course, but I personally wouldn't worry too much about Lyft. I think the fact that they appear to allow a broader range of vehicles and drivers is a competitive advantage.
- lsseckman 10y agoChicagoan here, lots of drivers I've spoken with prefer Lyft. Most reference the great support they get from Lyft corporate.
- spiderfarmer 10y agoBut Lyft is stuck in Uber’s shadow. I asked one venture capitalist what he thought of Lyft. He put his thumb and index finger into an L shape, brought his hand to his forehead and mouthed “loser”. I don't get this obsession with market share. Is Apple a loser? Is Pepsi a loser?
- FussyZeus 10y agoI think tech is unique in that once a given company attains enough market share it typically is then around and stable for a very long time, deservedly so or not. Citation Microsoft, which through aggressive business tactics became (and continues to be) pseudonymous with personal computing. Apple isn't a loser anymore but that's because they found a new market in handheld devices, I'd argue in terms of the PC battle, despite how good a Mac is (I'm writing this on one) I'd say they've still firmly lost in this market. But just because you're a loser in the market doesn't mean you lose at everything. Still plenty of money to be made even if you can't make all of the money forever, which seems to be how a lot of VC's define success.
- spiderfarmer 10y agoI'd argue in terms of the PC battle, despite how good a Mac is (I'm writing this on one) I'd say they've still firmly lost in this market. "Measured as sales through the U.S. consumer retail channel, Macs reached rather shocking milestone during first half 2015, according to data that NPD provided to me today. Yes, you can consider this a first, and from lower volume shipments. By operating system: OS X, 49.7 percent; Windows, 48.3 percent; Chrome OS, 1.9 percent. That compares to the same time period in 2014: OS X, 44.8 percent; Windows, 53.1 percent; Chrome OS, 2.1 percent. So there is no confusion, the data is for U.S. consumer laptops." http://betanews.com/2015/08/12/yikes-apple-laptop-revenue-share-exceeds-windows-pcs/ http://betanews.com/2015/08/12/yikes-apple-laptop-revenue-sh... I'd say market share is less important than revenue share, but Apple considered the loser in this market? I still don't get why market share is getting all the attention.
- FussyZeus 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- BatFastard 10y agoNo, nice guys come in 15th. Cause they are being tripped, sued, and cheated by the sociopaths. And there seems to be an endless number of those. As a nice guy developer for many years, who has build some amazing products, I have learned that no good dead goes unpunished. Irregardless I will continue to be a nice guy because that is how I believe the world 'should' work. One last cheer for Bernie!
- ikeyany 10y agoSurely it's possible to be a nice guy while screwing over the cheaters.
- daveloyall 10y agoCheaters are people.
- daveloyall 10y agoWow, that got a downvote? I meant it as answer to the question: No, it's not possible to screw over people while being a nice guy. Ipso facto.
- ikeyany 10y agoI did not downvote you, but I question why you suppose righting a wrong makes you no longer 'nice'.
- daveloyall 10y agoTwo wrongs don't make a right.
- ikeyany 10y agoNot always. But sometimes, yes.
- bovermyer 10y agoI really like this idea: "They have talked about building a city and designing it differently, so the car would not dominate the landscape." Custom-designing a utopic city has been tried before (see California City), but I never tire of seeing people try. The end result could be fantastic, especially in this case.
- panglott 10y agoLyft, has a name that is not distinctive from the English word "lift", which may make for a nice pun, but it's harder to express in conversation that you'll use a ride-sharing service rather than just calling a friend. "I'll get a lift." Uber has a lot more brand recognition, but like Chik-fil-A they are also known by a minority for terrible business practices and are on unofficial boycott.
- scintill76 10y agoYou're saying Chick-fil-A has terrible business practices? The only reason I know for people to hate them is that their owners have taken Christianity-based opposition to gay marriage (or something alone these lines), which doesn't really seem like a business practice of the restaurants.
- panglott 10y agoPerhaps I should have said just "terrible practices". The brand is about perception, and lots of liberals perceive Chik-fil-A as materially supporting regressive social values. Too bad the chicken is fantastic. With Uber you have the perception that the company is exploiting drivers, driving down wages, disregarding how it puts women at risk, and all kinds of sexist behavior. http://time.com/3595318/uber-sexism-tech-delete-app/ http://time.com/3595318/uber-sexism-tech-delete-app/
- grammar_bot 10y agoIrregardless is not a word
- Zikes 10y agoYou're about 100 years too late for that. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/irregardless http://www.dictionary.com/browse/irregardless
- grammar_bot 10y agoso you agree? "Word Origin and History for irregardless an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the opposite of what it is used to express. Attested in non-standard writing from at least 1870s probably a blend of irrespective and regardless."
- XaspR8d 10y agoNo, correctness is determined by usage, and Zikes is identifying that the usage has a fairly long history. One could say the same things about starting a sentence with "so", or using "agree" backwards (the original sense was closer to the form "my statement agrees with you?"), or using "you" instead of "thou"...
- grammar_bot 10y agoBesides being a double negative that results in it not being equivalent to regardless, to your point it's been used for at least 100 years and is still considered non standard.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sctb 10y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12186674 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12186674 and marked it off-topic.