4 ms·

I haven't downvoted you, and won't, but I might gently offer the observation that you are perhaps just a wee bit strident. By which I mean that after a half-doz

I haven't downvoted you, and won't, but I might gently offer the observation that you are perhaps just a wee bit strident. By which I mean that after a half-dozen of your comments on this thread, I am now basically translating them all as "the web is super duper amazing and full of rainbows and everything is wonderful on it except for some poopyheads who don't do everything that the great Google demands and also you tired jerky jerky relics who think there's a place for native apps which haven't advanced since 1970 OMG I bet you people are all using black-and-white CRTs get with the program." You like web apps. We get it.

rektide 4y ago
Thanks; not wrong. I don't want to try to rebut; I accept this, appreciate it. I do want to just offer, perhaps, that I feel like there's a huge tide I feel, of rejectionism & negativity, in the world & also here. One of the site guidelines that I think is violated consistently, that deeply violates the Hacker ethic of inquiry & exploration is: > Please don't post shallow dismissals, I respond a lot because I see a lot of people just blowing shit off, creating a lot of iniquitous social pressure- creates a sense of certainty & derision- without argumentation, without allowing that there might possibly be good or advantages or reasons for things. People stridenly believe this or that things are terrible & awful, & they don't want to debate: they just want to score points, be able to preserve what parts of them have that belief. I'd like to see such a more explorative mindset. Let us speculate, let us regard positive possibilities of things, consider how so/so things might possibly get better or improve. I think humanity deserves far better fates, and we deserve them on most topics. Contrary especially to the loudest & often most cantankerous opinion-havers- the jury is out. To seed only doubt & debate-to-win denies the future. To condemn too quickly & too readily is to obstruct gain & possibility, prevents the letting the good ever occur, predisposes us to ruination. I stridenly believe that, and stridenly believe it is existentially imperative that unbounded negativity be routed. I admit readily it's hard for me to keep balanced, keep eyes on the real prize, of openness & exploration, but I hope I can reasonably channel & embody the open & inquisitive Hacker spirit, hope I can encourage growth & exploration & interest in electronic frontiers. I hope I'm learning & getting better at it.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > Contrary especially to the loudest & often most cantankerous opinion-havers That is, Chrome and its army of "developer advocates". > To condemn too quickly & too readily is to obstruct gain & possibility And then you condemn Safari.
  - rektide 4y ago
    > And then you condemn Safari. Damn straight I do, holy shit. Safari is a staunch, immovable obstruction. It's acted like the enemy of the prize I keep my eyes on: > keep eyes on the real prize, of openness & exploration, I'm willing to regard it's upsides, but there aren't many. And it being fixed & forced upon people is vulgar decrepit shit. And people are gaga for this prison they are trapped in.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      > Damn straight I do, holy shit. Safari is a staunch, immovable obstruction. Of course, it isn't > And it being fixed & forced upon people is vulgar decrepit shit. And people are gaga for this prison they are trapped in. Ah yes. The more emotional outrage you poor into your rants, the more people will agree with you. Not. Here's a counterfactual point to your rants: https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_the_we.html https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th...
      - rektide 4y ago
        You literally posted a "counterfactual" advocating doing nothing. How is that open & exploratory? How does that line up at all with anything I'd value? This sounds like The Enemy of Good talking. This case isn't well made, except in it's crafty eloquent manipulation. It's bitter & pitch-axe raising about two pretty minor potentially breaking changes. Mountains out of mole hills. There's definitely very very very good reason for one of them, to protect users from some really ugly & janky manipulation (alert()... c'mon). The other I understand less. This actual evidence (someone actually bothered finding some for once, at least) is a small section in the middle. > "But why is Google breaking the web forward at such a pace?" > With Google’s move-fast-break-absofuckinglutely-everything axiom in mind, The majority of the article is elaborate framing to make us feel bad, to manipulate us towards hatred & distrust & suspicion. Through elaborate historical analogy. But these two little specs of evidence... they're like 0.00000000000001% of the web platform. It's ridiculously overblown. Get real, show some sense of scope; this is yellow dog journalism, sensationalism & creating rabidness. Civil society needs defenses against this would-be scandal-mongering. Against this ego, this control freaking: > Ages ago I argued we should give up on this, but of course no one listened. The article's conclusion is horriying. Taking a snapshot of the web, freezeframing it now, and refusing to grow the platform is death. Should we do the same for iOS? Sorry, you need to put it on hold for a decade. Your priests are too uppity Apple, you need to not alter your shit anymore. I do think the web has a much higher calling & standard than the lowly proprietary platforms. But I see very very few things that I think have been bad. People just protest change itself- they have little specifically to cite or dislike- & have staid desires, locked down & emotional responses. They want to shoehorn things into what they know. Being unwilling to accept change, demanding a hypermedium restrict itself to small ambitions is such a ridiculous & absurd conservative propoganda system. And it's one propogated by people, who, more often than not have other dogs they want to win the race. > Shall we push the web forward until it’s broken, The evidence of breakage is so vanishingly slim. There is so much hype, so much fear, so much hate against the web, against it's growth. But there's so little evidence. The author chalks this up to self-selection of communities, but don't you think there'd be like, you know, some actual evidence of the web actually breaking by now? Where is the walls of flame? Where is the horrible end of days we've been undergoing since this horrible apocalypse has not been abated? Where are the sites we use & love that just dont work anymore? Being afraid of the web having utility, being a dynamic medium, is such a foolish Fear Uncertainty Doubt cavalcade. No other medium has ever been so widely, so roundly kept down, by such hostile & pointless griping. And the anti-web forces are backed by an immovable object against which no progress can be made: the tyrannical Apple app store, the scummiest most loserly & unreasonable & staunchly unmovable obstructions of unfair anti-competition hacks.

rektide 4y ago

Thanks; not wrong. I don't want to try to rebut; I accept this, appreciate it. I do want to just offer, perhaps, that I feel like there's a huge tide I feel, of rejectionism & negativity, in the world & also here. One of the site guidelines that I think is violated consistently, that deeply violates the Hacker ethic of inquiry & exploration is: > Please don't post shallow dismissals, I respond a lot because I see a lot of people just blowing shit off, creating a lot of iniquitous social pressure- creates a sense of certainty & derision- without argumentation, without allowing that there might possibly be good or advantages or reasons for things. People stridenly believe this or that things are terrible & awful, & they don't want to debate: they just want to score points, be able to preserve what parts of them have that belief. I'd like to see such a more explorative mindset. Let us speculate, let us regard positive possibilities of things, consider how so/so things might possibly get better or improve. I think humanity deserves far better fates, and we deserve them on most topics. Contrary especially to the loudest & often most cantankerous opinion-havers- the jury is out. To seed only doubt & debate-to-win denies the future. To condemn too quickly & too readily is to obstruct gain & possibility, prevents the letting the good ever occur, predisposes us to ruination. I stridenly believe that, and stridenly believe it is existentially imperative that unbounded negativity be routed. I admit readily it's hard for me to keep balanced, keep eyes on the real prize, of openness & exploration, but I hope I can reasonably channel & embody the open & inquisitive Hacker spirit, hope I can encourage growth & exploration & interest in electronic frontiers. I hope I'm learning & getting better at it.

dmitriid 4y ago
> Contrary especially to the loudest & often most cantankerous opinion-havers That is, Chrome and its army of "developer advocates". > To condemn too quickly & too readily is to obstruct gain & possibility And then you condemn Safari.
- rektide 4y ago
  > And then you condemn Safari. Damn straight I do, holy shit. Safari is a staunch, immovable obstruction. It's acted like the enemy of the prize I keep my eyes on: > keep eyes on the real prize, of openness & exploration, I'm willing to regard it's upsides, but there aren't many. And it being fixed & forced upon people is vulgar decrepit shit. And people are gaga for this prison they are trapped in.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > Damn straight I do, holy shit. Safari is a staunch, immovable obstruction. Of course, it isn't > And it being fixed & forced upon people is vulgar decrepit shit. And people are gaga for this prison they are trapped in. Ah yes. The more emotional outrage you poor into your rants, the more people will agree with you. Not. Here's a counterfactual point to your rants: https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_the_we.html https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th...
    - rektide 4y ago
      You literally posted a "counterfactual" advocating doing nothing. How is that open & exploratory? How does that line up at all with anything I'd value? This sounds like The Enemy of Good talking. This case isn't well made, except in it's crafty eloquent manipulation. It's bitter & pitch-axe raising about two pretty minor potentially breaking changes. Mountains out of mole hills. There's definitely very very very good reason for one of them, to protect users from some really ugly & janky manipulation (alert()... c'mon). The other I understand less. This actual evidence (someone actually bothered finding some for once, at least) is a small section in the middle. > "But why is Google breaking the web forward at such a pace?" > With Google’s move-fast-break-absofuckinglutely-everything axiom in mind, The majority of the article is elaborate framing to make us feel bad, to manipulate us towards hatred & distrust & suspicion. Through elaborate historical analogy. But these two little specs of evidence... they're like 0.00000000000001% of the web platform. It's ridiculously overblown. Get real, show some sense of scope; this is yellow dog journalism, sensationalism & creating rabidness. Civil society needs defenses against this would-be scandal-mongering. Against this ego, this control freaking: > Ages ago I argued we should give up on this, but of course no one listened. The article's conclusion is horriying. Taking a snapshot of the web, freezeframing it now, and refusing to grow the platform is death. Should we do the same for iOS? Sorry, you need to put it on hold for a decade. Your priests are too uppity Apple, you need to not alter your shit anymore. I do think the web has a much higher calling & standard than the lowly proprietary platforms. But I see very very few things that I think have been bad. People just protest change itself- they have little specifically to cite or dislike- & have staid desires, locked down & emotional responses. They want to shoehorn things into what they know. Being unwilling to accept change, demanding a hypermedium restrict itself to small ambitions is such a ridiculous & absurd conservative propoganda system. And it's one propogated by people, who, more often than not have other dogs they want to win the race. > Shall we push the web forward until it’s broken, The evidence of breakage is so vanishingly slim. There is so much hype, so much fear, so much hate against the web, against it's growth. But there's so little evidence. The author chalks this up to self-selection of communities, but don't you think there'd be like, you know, some actual evidence of the web actually breaking by now? Where is the walls of flame? Where is the horrible end of days we've been undergoing since this horrible apocalypse has not been abated? Where are the sites we use & love that just dont work anymore? Being afraid of the web having utility, being a dynamic medium, is such a foolish Fear Uncertainty Doubt cavalcade. No other medium has ever been so widely, so roundly kept down, by such hostile & pointless griping. And the anti-web forces are backed by an immovable object against which no progress can be made: the tyrannical Apple app store, the scummiest most loserly & unreasonable & staunchly unmovable obstructions of unfair anti-competition hacks.