What stops your criticism from being a fully general counterargument against any community with an opinion?
The EFF is biased in favor of free speech and encryption, and markets to cyber-punk programmers. So all arguments in favor of free speech made by any EFF member in any EFF-related article can be immediately discarded.
"dogruck on HN" is biased against rollingstone.com; and gathers upvotes by appealing to people who dislike rollingstone.com(which, separately, is ineffective); so we should discard his opinions.
If you want to be lauded for "being skeptical", maybe include some kind of interesting or informed commentary or critique instead of posting a meaningless drive-by attack on the source.
That was the dream a long time ago, mainly in the 1950s-1970s. You'd work hard in school and hope for a good job at a good company like IBM or Ford, then you'd be the best company man possible to cling to that job and rise as high in the ranks as possible, then retire with a substantial % of your salary paid out in pension and generous benefits until you died.
It was real, but mostly only for the high born, the nepotistic, people in the "correct" church, and the backstabby. And of course white males only, hahah that almost goes without saying. It wasn't quite as amazing as people thought, but those who benefited sure did enjoy it.
Pretty much, the open space hype seems to have peaked in like 2010-2012, now we live in an enlightened time where even corporate leaders (gasp) are willing to admit different things work for different people.
The goal isn't even to watch everyone, even if you devoted 100% of all federal spending to watching everyone you wouldn't be able to do it. Not enough resources or time. The goal is to chill conversation and thought that is too critical of institutions. Mission accomplished.
Yes, it's easy to dismiss him for many reason, but more interesting to me is how he survived the brutal Maine winters: by getting up in the middle of the night and pacing back and forth to warm up. Every night. For 27 winters. I don't know how you measure willpower but that's gotta be one of the greats right there.
Unfortunately the idea that you would just restyle the content a bit as needed and viola website is redesigned never really worked. At any point in history. I just wish you could get through a redesign without learning three new languages nowadays.
Yes in my experience, we got the worst of both worlds.
We have people with a religion of separating style from content, so they introduce the complexities necessary to do that. But because it is merely a religion, they don't actually do it in a way that makes it possible to actually change styling just through CSS.
Yes, and what's particularly irrational is that CSS found it necessary to invent a new key/value syntax.
Then developers wanted to make sense of the mess by declaring "markup is for content, while CSS is for presentation". But the "separation of concerns" argument is merely an after-the-fact justification for the existence of the HTML/CSS separation. In the original markup language concept, attributes were specifically introduced to hold presentation attributes, while content was encoded as element content.
The content/presentation dichotomy doesn't hold water in a philosophical sense either. Many text pieces (such as poems, but also modern text forms) require special presentation. But what was particularly absurd is to invent a new syntax for key/values.
> We have people with a religion of separating style from content, so they introduce the complexities necessary to do that.
Yeah...I've seen lots of code review arguments where one developer refuses to alter the HTML to make the styling easier (e.g. order of elements, wrapping elements in certain ways) and then the CSS styling requires all sorts of complex tricks. If Google or screen readers won't see any difference, striving to separate styling from content like that is a waste of time in my opinion and you should make compromises. People complain about e.g. Bootstrap's "text-center" and column classes as well because they're not semantic but they can save time when used appropriately.
I agree. And if you view HTML as presentation there is absolutely nothing wrong with embedding styles. The CSS separation only makes sense if you consider HTML data, which some people might do but I think is misguided.
Honestly it is never so easy even in LaTeX. There is always some kind of adjustment that needs to be made, because real separation between style and content is really hard to achieve in general.
I can see why you would want to spend as little time on support as possible (and actually the goal is to improve your internal workflows, which the article spends more time on) when your business model is founded upon taxing scammers 5% and ignoring users.
Sorry for the snide post, I'm just 0/3 now on kickstarter projects. All abandoned for years now, nothing delivered, no recourse, nobody cares, kickstarter aggressively ignores. It's beyond stupid and completely unsustainable.
