3 ms·

> by me pointing out your own words You shared two links. One of them is slightly over the top & impolite as you say, but it's hardly worth hiding your childre

> by me pointing out your own words You shared two links. One of them is slightly over the top & impolite as you say, but it's hardly worth hiding your children over & running-me-out over. The other seems totally fine? Also, hugely humorously to me, it results in the "defender" calling this a new Flash & saying that's ok! I found that hilarious. Thanks for reminding me. But I also found 22 other links, on HN alone, and there's probably some more. Few have anything like the dangerous impoliteness you want me ran-off for. I think I could probably find slightly less polite things to say if I wanted to. It's easy to highlight some conveniently polarizing words, but in context, I think it's pretty clear & understandable where I'm coming from. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=rektide%20canvaskit&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=rektide%20canvaskit&sort=byDat... > and how those words make other people feel (enough to ban in you in several places, it looks like) First: you did not post these words. Not in the least. If you had, we might have something to discuss & debate & I would not be as presently mad as I have been for the past 24 hours. You just alluded so there having been some kind of words, once, and invent a a deeply negative portrayal of me suitable to your mean-spirited heartless task of casting me aside, that has nothing to do with reality. It has nothing to do with other people's feelings & how I made people feel. It just has to do with your little petty crusade, to make me look bad, to injure me. You bullied & browbeat me over some vague incident you don't really know or understand, cruelly. I responded the first time with generous sincerity far beyond what your ignorant snub deserved, & talked through the pain & difficulty surrounding these issues, & their complexity. I put some kind of substance to the completely empty airless taunting accusations you made. And you turned right back around & used the same mean, small, petty, short & trite baseless form to reduce me, ignoring the only iota of substances we had in this discussion to once again make diffuse meanspirited & cruel accusation, entirely without substance or merit. These words you've written this time just double down on showing your character, showing the caliber of character you bring. I know what I have been defending, I know what principles & virtues have motivated me in talking about CanvasKit (and have been quite transparent about my position, across many years now), but I keep grasping to understand what motivates you so deeply to act so small & so pettily to someone, to resort so heavily to attacks on my character, of which you know so little?

satvikpendem 4y ago
Two links out of many, I just did not want or need to link all of them. Regardless, the irony is quite thick. You seem offended by my words, as you mentioned, yet in the same breath don't seem to comprehend that your own words might have made other people feel a similar level of offense as you now feel. It really does feel like a "rules for me and not for thee". Do you really not see the irony of this fact? Anyway, HN is not the forum for these types of squabbles. I've noticed your comments for a long time and just now did I point them out. I will not need to point them out further, I suppose.
- rektide 4y ago
  > You seem offended by my words, as you mentioned, yet in the same breath don't seem to comprehend that your own words might have made other people feel a similar level of offense as you now feel. You targeted your words against a person. You went out of your way to invent malicious stories to tell, twisting some stalkerish facts you had at your disposal to suit your narrative without having any real sense of what happened. Then showing not the smallest iota of remorse or emapthy, you doubled down on your shitty low-grade deliberately-cruel deceit when some actual facts were injected we could have discussed. I targeted my grievances against ideas, against actual real harm being done to computing & to users. Yet you continue with unbecoming nasty backhanding retorts, once again using insults & being derogatory to try to claim the upper hand: > Regardless, the irony is quite thick. Is it? Really? I have said again and again that turning the web into a giant display of bitmaps is extremely bad for society. Like, destructive of the most critical fundamental gain information-society has ever had. Turning back the only semi-fair-shake the users of the world have gotten in computing, getting some bit of computing that has a common understandable modifiable substrate, whence upon extensions & a host of user-agencies have been built. Ruining that is folly, a critical threat to computers-as-understandable/learnable-things, which is one of the most humble & basic virtues. Renaissance society & natural philosophy emerged from the roots of visibility, and turning back the clock & making computing unknowable again would degrade the spirit of mankind enormously. I'm not saying this to hurt anyone's feelings. I think it's important feedback, and I think, if users see any noticeable percent of the web turned into a giant animated bitmap delivery engine, they'll be far more unreasonable about it. People are and were mad the core of Google Sheets turned into a giant bitmap. As for the team specifically? Did they set out to ruin the world? Honestly I'm not really sure, because it seems like a pretty obvious thing to miss, what an extreme degradation this is. I suspect they just built new tech for native & were like, hey we can port this to the web, and the fact that it's a giant bitmap isn't really their problem, anything they actually really care about that much, since the technological possibility is just so enticing to them, given what they already had. They claim to support & cherish the web, but I can hardly think of a crueler act to perpetrate against the web than replacing the high-level information-rich view-source world with a bunch of bitmaps on the screen. If they do care about the actual web, the web of information, in my view they have good options & possibilities. Making a mixed mode renderer that uses DOM atop their canvas seems like a pretty obvious answer, to make the structure & text real, something more than just visual. But they'd have to refocus. They'd have to be willing to try, they'd have to find a less combatative position, one not so opposed to the DOM that makes up 99.9999999% of websites. If Flutter could use some actual HTML elements to do some of the work with, it'd be a redeemable road. It wouldn't be a bleak dark alley into hypertext oblivion. It wouldn't be that hard, but it'd require a pivot. I think the team can find the light, can make great things, but it requires some severe wake-up moments. I hope they can hear this feedback early, & understand how frustrated sad & miserable what they propose will make masses of people. I hope all of Google sees & understands what a threat Flutter team's current effort is against whatever goodwill is held by webizens everywhere towards Google at large. This post of yours once again shows a need to snark, to be cruel. To tell yourself a story where you have been a saint and I am some awful person. You've denied fault again and again, and cast blame after blame on me as a person and almost never the ideas. This sort of shitthrowing is indeed less than what I would hope from this forum. I'm sorry that my language is not always up to your spec, Mr. Tone Police. I'm sorry I don't come only with fluffy cute animals & heart emojis & roses. I would like to be finding & surfacing the best things. But sometimes there are dangers too, and this is such a case. I have some very serious concerns about what is happening, and if this early technology starts to emerge into the world as so, it will cause enormous blowback against Google at large. Some of my language could be toned down. I am a bit cavalier sometimes, especially when the threat is so vast. But overall, if you look at most of my posts, I think most of them tend towards, maybe angry yes, but at least trying to communicate seriously, trying to talk about what the threat is, trying to protect all the users from harm, trying to keep some softness in software, & keep us all from being ramroaded into only ever being consigned to passive consumers of technology. I might be wrong, I could be mistaken, my stance could be off, but the set of concerns here are valid, and there are real virtues which are very important for all of us, at a deep deep level, and guide what parts of the future will be locked and unlocked to those who come next. I accept that I may have troubled some people by saying so, by being somewhat vulgar, but overall, I think I have been quite balanced about it.

satvikpendem 4y ago

Two links out of many, I just did not want or need to link all of them. Regardless, the irony is quite thick. You seem offended by my words, as you mentioned, yet in the same breath don't seem to comprehend that your own words might have made other people feel a similar level of offense as you now feel. It really does feel like a "rules for me and not for thee". Do you really not see the irony of this fact? Anyway, HN is not the forum for these types of squabbles. I've noticed your comments for a long time and just now did I point them out. I will not need to point them out further, I suppose.

rektide 4y ago
> You seem offended by my words, as you mentioned, yet in the same breath don't seem to comprehend that your own words might have made other people feel a similar level of offense as you now feel. You targeted your words against a person. You went out of your way to invent malicious stories to tell, twisting some stalkerish facts you had at your disposal to suit your narrative without having any real sense of what happened. Then showing not the smallest iota of remorse or emapthy, you doubled down on your shitty low-grade deliberately-cruel deceit when some actual facts were injected we could have discussed. I targeted my grievances against ideas, against actual real harm being done to computing & to users. Yet you continue with unbecoming nasty backhanding retorts, once again using insults & being derogatory to try to claim the upper hand: > Regardless, the irony is quite thick. Is it? Really? I have said again and again that turning the web into a giant display of bitmaps is extremely bad for society. Like, destructive of the most critical fundamental gain information-society has ever had. Turning back the only semi-fair-shake the users of the world have gotten in computing, getting some bit of computing that has a common understandable modifiable substrate, whence upon extensions & a host of user-agencies have been built. Ruining that is folly, a critical threat to computers-as-understandable/learnable-things, which is one of the most humble & basic virtues. Renaissance society & natural philosophy emerged from the roots of visibility, and turning back the clock & making computing unknowable again would degrade the spirit of mankind enormously. I'm not saying this to hurt anyone's feelings. I think it's important feedback, and I think, if users see any noticeable percent of the web turned into a giant animated bitmap delivery engine, they'll be far more unreasonable about it. People are and were mad the core of Google Sheets turned into a giant bitmap. As for the team specifically? Did they set out to ruin the world? Honestly I'm not really sure, because it seems like a pretty obvious thing to miss, what an extreme degradation this is. I suspect they just built new tech for native & were like, hey we can port this to the web, and the fact that it's a giant bitmap isn't really their problem, anything they actually really care about that much, since the technological possibility is just so enticing to them, given what they already had. They claim to support & cherish the web, but I can hardly think of a crueler act to perpetrate against the web than replacing the high-level information-rich view-source world with a bunch of bitmaps on the screen. If they do care about the actual web, the web of information, in my view they have good options & possibilities. Making a mixed mode renderer that uses DOM atop their canvas seems like a pretty obvious answer, to make the structure & text real, something more than just visual. But they'd have to refocus. They'd have to be willing to try, they'd have to find a less combatative position, one not so opposed to the DOM that makes up 99.9999999% of websites. If Flutter could use some actual HTML elements to do some of the work with, it'd be a redeemable road. It wouldn't be a bleak dark alley into hypertext oblivion. It wouldn't be that hard, but it'd require a pivot. I think the team can find the light, can make great things, but it requires some severe wake-up moments. I hope they can hear this feedback early, & understand how frustrated sad & miserable what they propose will make masses of people. I hope all of Google sees & understands what a threat Flutter team's current effort is against whatever goodwill is held by webizens everywhere towards Google at large. This post of yours once again shows a need to snark, to be cruel. To tell yourself a story where you have been a saint and I am some awful person. You've denied fault again and again, and cast blame after blame on me as a person and almost never the ideas. This sort of shitthrowing is indeed less than what I would hope from this forum. I'm sorry that my language is not always up to your spec, Mr. Tone Police. I'm sorry I don't come only with fluffy cute animals & heart emojis & roses. I would like to be finding & surfacing the best things. But sometimes there are dangers too, and this is such a case. I have some very serious concerns about what is happening, and if this early technology starts to emerge into the world as so, it will cause enormous blowback against Google at large. Some of my language could be toned down. I am a bit cavalier sometimes, especially when the threat is so vast. But overall, if you look at most of my posts, I think most of them tend towards, maybe angry yes, but at least trying to communicate seriously, trying to talk about what the threat is, trying to protect all the users from harm, trying to keep some softness in software, & keep us all from being ramroaded into only ever being consigned to passive consumers of technology. I might be wrong, I could be mistaken, my stance could be off, but the set of concerns here are valid, and there are real virtues which are very important for all of us, at a deep deep level, and guide what parts of the future will be locked and unlocked to those who come next. I accept that I may have troubled some people by saying so, by being somewhat vulgar, but overall, I think I have been quite balanced about it.