5 ms·

Both the content and the execution are worth mentioning. Especially on an article about inequality of access. 17MB text is not an issue if you're in one of the

by carlmr 9y ago

Both the content and the execution are worth mentioning. Especially on an article about inequality of access. 17MB text is not an issue if you're in one of the few broadband enabled rich locations of the world. But there are large parts of the world where you'd need a few hours on dial-up to read this article. Heck, even a sizeable portion of Americans are still on dial-up (https://www.dailydot.com/debug/dvd-rental-windows-3-aol-2017/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/dvd-rental-windows-3-aol-2017...),

diggan 9y ago
> Especially on an article about inequality of access I did not read the full article, only skimmed. If this is mentioned then yes, it's very relevant and indeed valuable to discuss. Thanks for bringing that up and I agree, 17MB is not very accessible, and bit weird to talk about inequality of access when serving so huge pages that won't even work in some parts of the world. With that said, tcd did not mention the same things as you did. There was no reaction about "article about inequality of access when your site is not accessible!", but more of a knee-jerk reaction of "Large JS, boo!". That's the part that is not constructive and I'm guessing, is why it was downvoted.
- carlmr 9y ago
  >I did not read the full article, only skimmed. If this is mentioned then yes, it's very relevant and indeed valuable to discuss. Thanks for bringing that up and I agree, 17MB is not very accessible, and bit weird to talk about inequality of access when serving so huge pages that won't even work in some parts of the world. It's not talking directly about inequality of access to websites. But inequality of access to education, vaccinations and other things is one of the general themes in the blog post. So it's only slightly hypocritical. >With that said, tcd did not mention the same things as you did. There was no reaction about "article about inequality of access when your site is not accessible!", but more of a knee-jerk reaction of "Large JS, boo!". That's the part that is not constructive and I'm guessing, is why it was downvoted. True, I think the comments might really be the wrong place to bring this up. It would be kind of cool to have the ranking algorithms on Google, Reddit, HN and other webpages downrank pages with large non-content sections. I'm not sure if such a metric is feasible without accidentally blocking some good pages, but we need harder measures to fight this internet cancer.

by carlmr 9y ago

diggan 9y ago

> Especially on an article about inequality of access I did not read the full article, only skimmed. If this is mentioned then yes, it's very relevant and indeed valuable to discuss. Thanks for bringing that up and I agree, 17MB is not very accessible, and bit weird to talk about inequality of access when serving so huge pages that won't even work in some parts of the world. With that said, tcd did not mention the same things as you did. There was no reaction about "article about inequality of access when your site is not accessible!", but more of a knee-jerk reaction of "Large JS, boo!". That's the part that is not constructive and I'm guessing, is why it was downvoted.

carlmr 9y ago
>I did not read the full article, only skimmed. If this is mentioned then yes, it's very relevant and indeed valuable to discuss. Thanks for bringing that up and I agree, 17MB is not very accessible, and bit weird to talk about inequality of access when serving so huge pages that won't even work in some parts of the world. It's not talking directly about inequality of access to websites. But inequality of access to education, vaccinations and other things is one of the general themes in the blog post. So it's only slightly hypocritical. >With that said, tcd did not mention the same things as you did. There was no reaction about "article about inequality of access when your site is not accessible!", but more of a knee-jerk reaction of "Large JS, boo!". That's the part that is not constructive and I'm guessing, is why it was downvoted. True, I think the comments might really be the wrong place to bring this up. It would be kind of cool to have the ranking algorithms on Google, Reddit, HN and other webpages downrank pages with large non-content sections. I'm not sure if such a metric is feasible without accidentally blocking some good pages, but we need harder measures to fight this internet cancer.