4 ms·

Who cares... site does not load with javascript disabled.

trumpownsyou420 9y ago
kill yourself.
CommentCard 9y ago
It's using react.js, maybe try unfiltering the site before heading to the comment section to tell everyone how much you don't care. This seems like an interesting way to do research on the best ways to convert these users who don't want to pay outright. Maybe selectively show ads to the free users?
KyeRussell 9y ago
Yeah, cool, so like most of the modern Internet then? Accepting JavaScript's prevalence—even given its many many many many many flaws—is something us pragmatists that actually decide to use the Internet to do things decided to do long long ago.
- s17n 9y ago
  Uh huh tell me more about these "things" that you "do". If there's a web app that I want to use, I whitelist it for js. For general browsing, I keep it off. Ironically, this works fine for the same reason that paywalls will never succeed - there is so much content out there that any individual piece of it has essentially no value.
  - Veen 9y ago
    > there is so much content out there that any individual piece of it has essentially no value Zero multiplied by anything is zero, so if all individual pieces of content are worthless, so is content as a whole. But of course that's not true because content isn't fungible. There's an infinity of content, but, unless you think a cat meme listicle is equivalent to War and Peace, it doesn't matter. The best content will always be worth paying for to people who care about what they put into their brain.
    - s17n 9y ago
      I'm talking about browsing HN - nothing getting posted here is equivalent to War and Peace. If a particular link doesn't work because of javascript, I can just go on to the next one.
- Lammy 9y ago
  The page is text and static images and it's kind of absurd for it not to render without JS enabled even in 2017.
jlgaddis 9y ago
> site does not load with javascript disabled Who cares?
- jabot 9y ago
  Anyone on mobile? Anyone who doesn't want a cryptocurrency miner in his browser? Anyone security conscious?
superkuh 9y ago
I agree. I'll JS whitelist the domain itself in good faith but when it's more than 4 CDN and framework domains deep, all loading each other in serially, I'm just going to close the tab. It's even worse when all they're trying to do is show simple text.
- NoGravitas 9y ago
  Yeah. I run uBlock Origin in "medium mode", defaulting to blocking third-party resources, but I'm pretty used to enabling them to get sites working. Enabling the most likely domains on this site just didn't do anything, so I'm just not going to bother doing anything more.
Veen 9y ago
It's fine for any website to choose who it wants to serve. I don't imagine most JavaScript-dependent services are sad about losing a fraction of a percent of their potential users. It's not for them in the first place.
CaptSpify 9y ago
Agreed. It's funny to me that someone wants to charge people for their online service, but can't even make a simple web-page fail gracefully. That's a pretty strong signal to me of the quality of their online service

kill yourself.

It's using react.js, maybe try unfiltering the site before heading to the comment section to tell everyone how much you don't care. This seems like an interesting way to do research on the best ways to convert these users who don't want to pay outright. Maybe selectively show ads to the free users?

KyeRussell 9y ago

Yeah, cool, so like most of the modern Internet then? Accepting JavaScript's prevalence—even given its many many many many many flaws—is something us pragmatists that actually decide to use the Internet to do things decided to do long long ago.

s17n 9y ago
Uh huh tell me more about these "things" that you "do". If there's a web app that I want to use, I whitelist it for js. For general browsing, I keep it off. Ironically, this works fine for the same reason that paywalls will never succeed - there is so much content out there that any individual piece of it has essentially no value.
- Veen 9y ago
  > there is so much content out there that any individual piece of it has essentially no value Zero multiplied by anything is zero, so if all individual pieces of content are worthless, so is content as a whole. But of course that's not true because content isn't fungible. There's an infinity of content, but, unless you think a cat meme listicle is equivalent to War and Peace, it doesn't matter. The best content will always be worth paying for to people who care about what they put into their brain.
  - s17n 9y ago
    I'm talking about browsing HN - nothing getting posted here is equivalent to War and Peace. If a particular link doesn't work because of javascript, I can just go on to the next one.
Lammy 9y ago
The page is text and static images and it's kind of absurd for it not to render without JS enabled even in 2017.

jlgaddis 9y ago

> site does not load with javascript disabled Who cares?

jabot 9y ago
Anyone on mobile? Anyone who doesn't want a cryptocurrency miner in his browser? Anyone security conscious?

superkuh 9y ago

I agree. I'll JS whitelist the domain itself in good faith but when it's more than 4 CDN and framework domains deep, all loading each other in serially, I'm just going to close the tab. It's even worse when all they're trying to do is show simple text.

NoGravitas 9y ago
Yeah. I run uBlock Origin in "medium mode", defaulting to blocking third-party resources, but I'm pretty used to enabling them to get sites working. Enabling the most likely domains on this site just didn't do anything, so I'm just not going to bother doing anything more.

Veen 9y ago

It's fine for any website to choose who it wants to serve. I don't imagine most JavaScript-dependent services are sad about losing a fraction of a percent of their potential users. It's not for them in the first place.

CaptSpify 9y ago

Agreed. It's funny to me that someone wants to charge people for their online service, but can't even make a simple web-page fail gracefully. That's a pretty strong signal to me of the quality of their online service