4 ms·

We like ascetics going in the wilderness to live in caves. So, without kidding, go you! But some screenshots of that would have helped the article. I wonder if

We like ascetics going in the wilderness to live in caves. So, without kidding, go you! But some screenshots of that would have helped the article. I wonder if the Stallman setup of getting emails wouldn't be about the same given the amount of proxies used. I actually had an intern implement something like this long ago. We had a web crawler and what better way to test it than to hook it up to email then rewrite links so it emails them too. It was OK for a few days.

horsawlarway 6y ago
Do we like them, or do we use them as helpful reminders to not take the luxuries of our modern times for granted? (with a heap of respect for forgoing them thrown on top) I also find this comment deeply ironic given that the post argues against images on the web, but screenshots would have helped.
- necovek 6y ago
  The post argues against images on the web which are "advertisements of content" and "made to take over your attention and again". A screenshot of how a popular page is experienced (eg. HN: I wouldn't expect that to be bad at all) here would be content, I think.
  - horsawlarway 6y ago
    The post argues for turning images off. Period. Because they are not useful and break the author's ideal "uniform" web page. He then mentions he might turn them on for sites that are useful (like wikipedia). He even explicitly states that he thinks that his view will be a giant controversy. How would you possibly know if the images on this page would be informative content, or advertising attention grabbers, when they're all turned off?
    - necovek 6y ago
      Perhaps it's about prejudices we have when we interpret the content we read. I get a dislike for "decorational" images like a photo of a random bridge over a river (c) AStockPhotoSite when talking about building a new bridge in the town: that ain't content. An illustration of the bridge to be, an architectural depiction, would be considered content. Wikipedia seldom has images of the former type: they are all there to expand the content being represented. So, I've read the article according to my biases, and I do not see such a strong opinion against images: to me it reads not as if they might, but rather that they do enable them on Wikipedia.
mkl 6y ago
The Links site they link to has screenshots under Features [1]. It looks like something from the mid to late 90s. [1] http://links.twibright.com/features.php http://links.twibright.com/features.php

horsawlarway 6y ago

Do we like them, or do we use them as helpful reminders to not take the luxuries of our modern times for granted? (with a heap of respect for forgoing them thrown on top) I also find this comment deeply ironic given that the post argues against images on the web, but screenshots would have helped.

necovek 6y ago
The post argues against images on the web which are "advertisements of content" and "made to take over your attention and again". A screenshot of how a popular page is experienced (eg. HN: I wouldn't expect that to be bad at all) here would be content, I think.
- horsawlarway 6y ago
  The post argues for turning images off. Period. Because they are not useful and break the author's ideal "uniform" web page. He then mentions he might turn them on for sites that are useful (like wikipedia). He even explicitly states that he thinks that his view will be a giant controversy. How would you possibly know if the images on this page would be informative content, or advertising attention grabbers, when they're all turned off?
  - necovek 6y ago
    Perhaps it's about prejudices we have when we interpret the content we read. I get a dislike for "decorational" images like a photo of a random bridge over a river (c) AStockPhotoSite when talking about building a new bridge in the town: that ain't content. An illustration of the bridge to be, an architectural depiction, would be considered content. Wikipedia seldom has images of the former type: they are all there to expand the content being represented. So, I've read the article according to my biases, and I do not see such a strong opinion against images: to me it reads not as if they might, but rather that they do enable them on Wikipedia.

mkl 6y ago

The Links site they link to has screenshots under Features [1]. It looks like something from the mid to late 90s. [1] http://links.twibright.com/features.php http://links.twibright.com/features.php