4 ms·

Sorry, but you're out of touch. Almost everyone wants the features that JS enables. Literally: Almost everyone. I understand you don't, and I absolutely resp

Sorry, but you're out of touch. Almost everyone wants the features that JS enables. Literally: Almost everyone. I understand you don't, and I absolutely respect that decision, but it means that you're not worth developing for. Full stop. It's not a matter of mal-intent, it's a matter of financial logistics. You bought that machine to run code. If you don't want to run code that sites serve you on the internet, don't visit them. That said, I'd be willing to wager a fair bit that literally every line of code you've run on your machine (probably ever if it's been bought in the last few years) outside of the vendor installed OS and drivers came from the internet.

dijit 8y ago
You're making an assumption about me, I actually don't use noscript these days (I haven't for at least 6 years at this point) however I will fight for the right of my brethren who do not have machines with six CPU cores and 64G of ram, or those who have had their scrollbars hijacked, or their text to speech software go insane, or their web experience which used to be controlled by them insidiously invaded by people who want to use their webbrowser as a software distribution platform and virtual machine. Javascript being enforced allows for a sub-par slew of web development which does not cater for performance(minor) or accessibility(major). I dislike the trend of _forcing_ people to do something that doesn't benefit them. Even if I'm not personally affected.
- horsawlarway 8y ago
  I'm sorry, but who is _forcing_ you to do anything?
  - dijit 8y ago
    Wow, I'm sorry... are you trolling? This thread is about google forcing everyone to use javascript to use their services. That's literally the topic of conversation. EDIT: I'm not allowed to post because of downvotes, to reply to the child: I am not forced to use google, no, but I don't think I'd get very far on todays internet without javascript. Google are enabling that: Now people will say "Oh, well google are able to force javascript so why would we support more than google does? we don't have their resources!" And thus, the next generation of websites have absolutely no hope of ever having a plaintext version.
    - horsawlarway 8y ago
      You're talking about a service that this company provides at no charge. No one is forcing anyone to use these services. If you don't like that, go somewhere else. No one is holding a gun to your head and going "RUN JS OR I SHOOT!". Why do you assume that you, and the people you claim to be advocating for, are able to compel this entirely separate entity, making a decision it believes is best for the majority of it's customers, to do something that benefits you - a user of a service provided at no charge, and with absolutely no binding contract?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - Jenz 8y ago
      Does anyone force you to use Google’s services?
nathan_long 8y ago
> That said, I'd be willing to wager a fair bit that literally every line of code you've run on your machine (probably ever if it's been bought in the last few years) outside of the vendor installed OS and drivers came from the internet. We explicitly decide to install software and we know where we're getting it from. We may not be careful enough, but I certainly trust `brew install` a lot more than I trust a random site I happen to visit. > You bought that machine to run code. If you don't want to run code that sites serve you on the internet, don't visit them. I bought my car to drive it, but that doesn't mean that every person I pass on the street gets to drive my car. You seem to think that visiting a web site establishes a trusting relationship with that site. I think that downloading a site's HTML and running its JavaScript are quite different levels of trust. Especially when the content and the code come from very different entities - eg, the journalist writing the article vs the advertising network the publication uses. Clearly if I'm using Gmail, I'm trusting Gmail and I don't mind running their JavaScript. But the blanket statement that "if you don't want to run code that sites serve you on the internet, don't visit them" seems out of touch with how pervasively nasty the internet is. Taking a walk on a city sidewalk does not require eating whatever you find there.
- horsawlarway 8y ago
  I think this is a reversal of responsibility. You're shifting the responsibility from yourself to a different entity for the choices you're making. The single safest thing you can do while using the web is to simply be aware of what you're clicking on, and what sites you visit. > I bought my car to drive it, but that doesn't mean that every person I pass on the street gets to drive my car. Damn right you don't let random people drive your car! just like I expect you not to click every link you see! I'd also love it if you'd install an ad blocker, remove just about every other extension you have in your browser (ABSOLUTELY do this for old firefox extensions and IE BHOs) and trust your browser when it tells you that maybe visiting that particular site isn't the best idea. That said, modern browsers do a really, really good job at isolating the code running in that page from anything you care about.
  - plankers 8y ago

dijit 8y ago

You're making an assumption about me, I actually don't use noscript these days (I haven't for at least 6 years at this point) however I will fight for the right of my brethren who do not have machines with six CPU cores and 64G of ram, or those who have had their scrollbars hijacked, or their text to speech software go insane, or their web experience which used to be controlled by them insidiously invaded by people who want to use their webbrowser as a software distribution platform and virtual machine. Javascript being enforced allows for a sub-par slew of web development which does not cater for performance(minor) or accessibility(major). I dislike the trend of _forcing_ people to do something that doesn't benefit them. Even if I'm not personally affected.

horsawlarway 8y ago
I'm sorry, but who is _forcing_ you to do anything?
- dijit 8y ago
  Wow, I'm sorry... are you trolling? This thread is about google forcing everyone to use javascript to use their services. That's literally the topic of conversation. EDIT: I'm not allowed to post because of downvotes, to reply to the child: I am not forced to use google, no, but I don't think I'd get very far on todays internet without javascript. Google are enabling that: Now people will say "Oh, well google are able to force javascript so why would we support more than google does? we don't have their resources!" And thus, the next generation of websites have absolutely no hope of ever having a plaintext version.
  - horsawlarway 8y ago
    You're talking about a service that this company provides at no charge. No one is forcing anyone to use these services. If you don't like that, go somewhere else. No one is holding a gun to your head and going "RUN JS OR I SHOOT!". Why do you assume that you, and the people you claim to be advocating for, are able to compel this entirely separate entity, making a decision it believes is best for the majority of it's customers, to do something that benefits you - a user of a service provided at no charge, and with absolutely no binding contract?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - Jenz 8y ago
    Does anyone force you to use Google’s services?

nathan_long 8y ago

> That said, I'd be willing to wager a fair bit that literally every line of code you've run on your machine (probably ever if it's been bought in the last few years) outside of the vendor installed OS and drivers came from the internet. We explicitly decide to install software and we know where we're getting it from. We may not be careful enough, but I certainly trust `brew install` a lot more than I trust a random site I happen to visit. > You bought that machine to run code. If you don't want to run code that sites serve you on the internet, don't visit them. I bought my car to drive it, but that doesn't mean that every person I pass on the street gets to drive my car. You seem to think that visiting a web site establishes a trusting relationship with that site. I think that downloading a site's HTML and running its JavaScript are quite different levels of trust. Especially when the content and the code come from very different entities - eg, the journalist writing the article vs the advertising network the publication uses. Clearly if I'm using Gmail, I'm trusting Gmail and I don't mind running their JavaScript. But the blanket statement that "if you don't want to run code that sites serve you on the internet, don't visit them" seems out of touch with how pervasively nasty the internet is. Taking a walk on a city sidewalk does not require eating whatever you find there.

horsawlarway 8y ago
I think this is a reversal of responsibility. You're shifting the responsibility from yourself to a different entity for the choices you're making. The single safest thing you can do while using the web is to simply be aware of what you're clicking on, and what sites you visit. > I bought my car to drive it, but that doesn't mean that every person I pass on the street gets to drive my car. Damn right you don't let random people drive your car! just like I expect you not to click every link you see! I'd also love it if you'd install an ad blocker, remove just about every other extension you have in your browser (ABSOLUTELY do this for old firefox extensions and IE BHOs) and trust your browser when it tells you that maybe visiting that particular site isn't the best idea. That said, modern browsers do a really, really good job at isolating the code running in that page from anything you care about.
- plankers 8y ago