13 ms·

Yeah, same here with JS. Solid black page, no content. View source indicates about half is some Google analytics boilerplate, the other half is a body consisti

Yeah, same here with JS. Solid black page, no content. View source indicates about half is some Google analytics boilerplate, the other half is a body consisting entirely of non-functional JS pulls. OP, where is the content stored?

mcny 7y ago
Meanwhile, please check https://archive.md/aGFRs https://archive.md/aGFRs
- droithomme 7y ago
  "Can’t find the server at archive.md"
  - mcny 7y ago
    (I believe it is because of some spat between archive is and cloudflare) From the archives: Please make your products work with URLs I want to tell you about something I was unable to accomplish, after more than 30 minutes of concerted effort. I have video file hosted using a web server. The file is H.264 main-profile encoded at a reasonable bitrate (<5Mbps), uses AAC audio, and is packaged in an MP4 container. The web server supports HTTP range requests. In other words, the video is basically in the least common denominator format for compatibility. It streams great in all major web browers, VLC, and everything in between. In my living room, I have a Roku "smart" TV. It has tons of apps, full internet connectivity, and is more than capable of both connecting to and playing the video file described above. But I failed to get this to happen, after much googling and trying multiple apps (both on the Roku TV and my Android phone). The way this type of thing is usually accomplished in 2020 is to open the video on your phone, then tap a "cast" icon and tell it to send the video to your TV. What happens behind the scenes is the phone uses some protocol (Chromecast being the most common I'm aware of) to send the URL to the TV, and the TV then plays it directly, while still letting you play/pause, seek, change volume, etc from the phone. When this works, it's like magic. The YouTube app works particularly well. However, there doesn't seem to be any widely implemented standard for playing plain URLs, only walled gardens like the YouTube app. This whole thing was made much more frustrating by the fact that I knew the TV had all the requisite capabilities to do what I was attempting. The YouTube app is proof of that. There just wasn't any obvious way to find the correct app combination. Here's the way this should work. The Roku app for Android allows you to use your phone as a keyboard for the TV, rather than the awful physical remote UX for input. This is a great feature which I appreciate. I should be able to copy a URL from my phone (possibly obtained from scanning a QR code), paste it into the Roku Android app, and the Roku should attempt to play the file at the URL. This is clunky, awkward, and not particularly easy. But it is simple, obvious, and intuitive. Here is my plea: when you build hardware/software, please make it support the primitive, simple case. By all means, implement the slick Chromecast-style flows. It's great when it works. But there needs to be a fallback for when it doesn't work, or when the user wants to try something slightly different. HTTP is the lingua franca of the internet. When you build stuff, please make it work with simple URLs.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Sigh. Cloudflare and archive.fo don't play well together. Each blames the other. I've explicitly coded an exception for the domain on my own networking kit, but that fix hasn't been working for a while, which is ... annoying. Ordinarily, though, it's a useful fix. If you can point DNS at a provider other than Cloudflare (1.1.1.1), it should work.
zamadatix 7y ago
Loads for me, are you sure you're not excessively blocking scripts?
- droithomme 7y ago
  uBlock Origin is the only blocker running right now. Is it evil and I should run naked? All the rest were disabled for "could not be verified and was disabled" after my last browser update. Is this site heavy on ads and other malware and won't display without totally naked openness to exploits?
  - jdbernard 7y ago
    No, I'm running with uBlock Origin and NoScript (but temp. allowing top-level domains). Works for me. Must be something else.
- j1elo 7y ago
  I'd wager that showing 5 static paragraphs on screen should not depend on how excessively blocked are JS scripts in any given page (Note: works for me too, with default uBlock and Pi-Hole blocklists)
danShumway 7y ago
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anderspitman/anderspitman.net/master/entries/16/entry.md https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anderspitman/anderspitman.... Note for OP: The reason this breaks without Javascript is because it's rendering the Markdown clientside. That could be moved to part of the build process without increasing your hosting requirements at all. I can see that you already have https://github.com/anderspitman/anderspitman.net/blob/master/gen_static https://github.com/anderspitman/anderspitman.net/blob/master... started, so I'm assuming you know this already and that you just haven't had the time to set up rendering on build yet. It's not my intention to preach to the choir. If you're struggling to figure out how to get this working as a SPA while still including content for non-JS users, my advice would be to include the rendered HTML in each index.html and just hide it with CSS during page load. You can still use AJAX for all of your subsequent navigation to avoid reloading the page, but if the static HTML is annotated with the correct links and content, people who request a specific URL without Javascript would still get to read. Or you could even get fancy and skip hiding it on the initial page load, only swapping it out with AJAX for future navigation, and this would make your initial page load even faster than it currently is.
- jefftk 7y ago
  Rendering markdown client-side seems like a fine way to implement a web page. It's a cheap transformation, and it means you don't need any sort of server-side build process. Yes, some people choose to browse with JS disabled, but anyone who browses that way should expect that many sites won't work and will need to be manually whitelisted.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    > you don't need any sort of server-side build process OP is already using a server-side build process to generate the static site. Inserting the HTML at the same time they built the site would add very little extra code to their build process, and nothing to their static hosting requirements. If nothing else, would OP consider inserting a <noscript> tag in each generated index.html that linked to the raw Markdown in their Github repo?
kirstenbirgit 7y ago
I feel like Hacker News main purpose isn't a news aggregator anymore, it's turned in to a place to test the usability of your Web site with the kinds of people who run NoScript or browse with a terminal.
- anderspitman 7y ago
  It does feel that way.
- bookofjoe 7y ago
  Off topic: reading back through your comments here, I was surprised to learn you're Danish. Your written English is completely native and natural: is this typical of Danish people? Can schools be that effective?
  - anderspitman 7y ago
    In my experience, Swedes and Danes have scary good English.
  - kirstenbirgit 7y ago
    Thanks! I've been reading and writing English since I was about 10 years old, and I really like writing, so that might have something to do with it. I think that are various levels of proficiency, but in general, most Danes have a very good grasp of it, and it's easy to live here if you only speak English.
    - bookofjoe 7y ago
      At various times in my life I've spoken or studied Hebrew, Yiddish, Spanish, Japanese, and Italian. My proficiency is 0 in all of them. Sic transit gloria mundi....

mcny 7y ago

Meanwhile, please check https://archive.md/aGFRs https://archive.md/aGFRs

droithomme 7y ago
"Can’t find the server at archive.md"
- mcny 7y ago
  (I believe it is because of some spat between archive is and cloudflare) From the archives: Please make your products work with URLs I want to tell you about something I was unable to accomplish, after more than 30 minutes of concerted effort. I have video file hosted using a web server. The file is H.264 main-profile encoded at a reasonable bitrate (<5Mbps), uses AAC audio, and is packaged in an MP4 container. The web server supports HTTP range requests. In other words, the video is basically in the least common denominator format for compatibility. It streams great in all major web browers, VLC, and everything in between. In my living room, I have a Roku "smart" TV. It has tons of apps, full internet connectivity, and is more than capable of both connecting to and playing the video file described above. But I failed to get this to happen, after much googling and trying multiple apps (both on the Roku TV and my Android phone). The way this type of thing is usually accomplished in 2020 is to open the video on your phone, then tap a "cast" icon and tell it to send the video to your TV. What happens behind the scenes is the phone uses some protocol (Chromecast being the most common I'm aware of) to send the URL to the TV, and the TV then plays it directly, while still letting you play/pause, seek, change volume, etc from the phone. When this works, it's like magic. The YouTube app works particularly well. However, there doesn't seem to be any widely implemented standard for playing plain URLs, only walled gardens like the YouTube app. This whole thing was made much more frustrating by the fact that I knew the TV had all the requisite capabilities to do what I was attempting. The YouTube app is proof of that. There just wasn't any obvious way to find the correct app combination. Here's the way this should work. The Roku app for Android allows you to use your phone as a keyboard for the TV, rather than the awful physical remote UX for input. This is a great feature which I appreciate. I should be able to copy a URL from my phone (possibly obtained from scanning a QR code), paste it into the Roku Android app, and the Roku should attempt to play the file at the URL. This is clunky, awkward, and not particularly easy. But it is simple, obvious, and intuitive. Here is my plea: when you build hardware/software, please make it support the primitive, simple case. By all means, implement the slick Chromecast-style flows. It's great when it works. But there needs to be a fallback for when it doesn't work, or when the user wants to try something slightly different. HTTP is the lingua franca of the internet. When you build stuff, please make it work with simple URLs.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Sigh. Cloudflare and archive.fo don't play well together. Each blames the other. I've explicitly coded an exception for the domain on my own networking kit, but that fix hasn't been working for a while, which is ... annoying. Ordinarily, though, it's a useful fix. If you can point DNS at a provider other than Cloudflare (1.1.1.1), it should work.

zamadatix 7y ago

Loads for me, are you sure you're not excessively blocking scripts?

droithomme 7y ago
uBlock Origin is the only blocker running right now. Is it evil and I should run naked? All the rest were disabled for "could not be verified and was disabled" after my last browser update. Is this site heavy on ads and other malware and won't display without totally naked openness to exploits?
- jdbernard 7y ago
  No, I'm running with uBlock Origin and NoScript (but temp. allowing top-level domains). Works for me. Must be something else.
j1elo 7y ago
I'd wager that showing 5 static paragraphs on screen should not depend on how excessively blocked are JS scripts in any given page (Note: works for me too, with default uBlock and Pi-Hole blocklists)

danShumway 7y ago

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anderspitman/anderspitman.net/master/entries/16/entry.md https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anderspitman/anderspitman.... Note for OP: The reason this breaks without Javascript is because it's rendering the Markdown clientside. That could be moved to part of the build process without increasing your hosting requirements at all. I can see that you already have https://github.com/anderspitman/anderspitman.net/blob/master/gen_static https://github.com/anderspitman/anderspitman.net/blob/master... started, so I'm assuming you know this already and that you just haven't had the time to set up rendering on build yet. It's not my intention to preach to the choir. If you're struggling to figure out how to get this working as a SPA while still including content for non-JS users, my advice would be to include the rendered HTML in each index.html and just hide it with CSS during page load. You can still use AJAX for all of your subsequent navigation to avoid reloading the page, but if the static HTML is annotated with the correct links and content, people who request a specific URL without Javascript would still get to read. Or you could even get fancy and skip hiding it on the initial page load, only swapping it out with AJAX for future navigation, and this would make your initial page load even faster than it currently is.

jefftk 7y ago
Rendering markdown client-side seems like a fine way to implement a web page. It's a cheap transformation, and it means you don't need any sort of server-side build process. Yes, some people choose to browse with JS disabled, but anyone who browses that way should expect that many sites won't work and will need to be manually whitelisted.
- danShumway 7y ago
  > you don't need any sort of server-side build process OP is already using a server-side build process to generate the static site. Inserting the HTML at the same time they built the site would add very little extra code to their build process, and nothing to their static hosting requirements. If nothing else, would OP consider inserting a <noscript> tag in each generated index.html that linked to the raw Markdown in their Github repo?

kirstenbirgit 7y ago

I feel like Hacker News main purpose isn't a news aggregator anymore, it's turned in to a place to test the usability of your Web site with the kinds of people who run NoScript or browse with a terminal.

anderspitman 7y ago
It does feel that way.
bookofjoe 7y ago
Off topic: reading back through your comments here, I was surprised to learn you're Danish. Your written English is completely native and natural: is this typical of Danish people? Can schools be that effective?
- anderspitman 7y ago
  In my experience, Swedes and Danes have scary good English.
- kirstenbirgit 7y ago
  Thanks! I've been reading and writing English since I was about 10 years old, and I really like writing, so that might have something to do with it. I think that are various levels of proficiency, but in general, most Danes have a very good grasp of it, and it's easy to live here if you only speak English.
  - bookofjoe 7y ago
    At various times in my life I've spoken or studied Hebrew, Yiddish, Spanish, Japanese, and Italian. My proficiency is 0 in all of them. Sic transit gloria mundi....