▲ 4 points
back
13 comments
Compiling to javascript is mostly pointless and unnecessary, and should be the exception rather than the rule.
Dynamic content on the web (javascript, web apps) is not a corruption of its original intent. Running code as well as viewing static documents was always a part of the theoretical future envisioned for it.
Eternal September is a natural part of the evolutionary process of online communities, and it is not always harmful. Cultural elitism and gatekeeping, however, are always harmful.
The web was not a mistake. The modern web is superior in terms of the breadth and depth of its content to the old web in many ways, and that old web wasn't the bastion of quality content and creativity that people seem to remember.
Design is not a waste of time, nor is it just eye candy and fluff. It matters. It matters a lot.
Stallman is not always right about everything.
The Last Jedi was flawed, but in time will be regarded as the best mainline Star Wars film outside of the OT (assuming episode 9 isn't utterly brilliant.)
This might actually be difficult to discern, as the site has "shadow banning" where an unpopular posting or comment can be banned - but not from the original poster, so they do not know it happened. I personally consider this a deceitful practice, as the person posting is being deceived into thinking other site users can see what they write but this is not true. So if someone has an unpopular opinion they might not know of its unpopularity due to this practice.
On the one hand, shadowbanning is reversible through public action now, so it's not as bad as it was. On the other hand, you can lose your ability to do so if you vouch for too many comments the mods consider divisive or low quality.
IIUC most ban had an explicit announcement of the mods, but I'm not sure if after the ban the poster can see that their post are [dead]. (I think that there are some automatic bans for new accounts with too many automatic red flags.)
I think most discussions of political and economic topics in here tend to go around in circles without much intellectual progress being made. Curiously I see this applying to all sides of the political spectrum; you might think naïvely that this is only a problem on the "left", but attitudes on the 'right' can be just as frustrating or even more so, they're just a bit less salient.
It happens in technical threads as well, but isn't considered "low quality" because it isn't politics or mainstream.
The difference is all in that most qualifier. I genuinely have trouble finding discussions of these "non-technical" topics that are genuinely worthwhile in an "intellectual curiosity" sense. It's a bit jarring since even e.g. Reddit does a lot better once you find the right niche-subcommunities. And again, it has nothing to do with political stance, since both sides do it!
Anything that doesn't conform to the dogma for certain "givens", it's like a religion sometimes.
The same statement can be downvoted into oblivion or upvoted into orbit depending on who's on at the time. Is it unpopular to say HN is more varied in opinions than it seems?
>Is it unpopular to say HN is more varied in opinions than it seems?
Yes. Many people seem to believe HN conforms to a single political or cultural ideology, and often that the mods enforce this.
In reality, the population is diverse, and host to many conflicting "groupthinks", but people tend to segregate themselves by thread subject and time, encountering the same people and discussions over and over, making the userbase seems more homogeneous than it is.
Simulation hypothesis--it seems as good for explaining many phenomena and should be tested like other theories.
Monads are not hard the explanations are bad.
ES5