"Gaining acceptance into graduate school or medical school and achieving a PhD or MD and becoming a psychologist or psychiatrist means jumping through many hoops, all of which require much behavioral and attentional compliance to authorities, even to those authorities that one lacks respect for. The selection and socialization of mental health professionals tends to breed out many anti-authoritarians. Having steered the higher-education terrain for a decade of my life, I know that degrees and credentials are primarily badges of compliance. Those with extended schooling have lived for many years in a world where one routinely conforms to the demands of authorities. Thus for many MDs and PhDs, people different from them who reject this attentional and behavioral compliance appear to be from another world—a diagnosable one."
There are too many everyday people armed with psychiatric terms.
Stop it. Many nootropic and psychotropic drugs induce many of those hallucinations. Accept it. And learn how to understand what your body is telling you, rather than treating it like it's some operating table experiment that you'd being graded to poke and prod. Your body is a diagnostician, albeit a cryptic one that has needs, demands and quirks of its own. Most of you simply do not know how to live in your skin because, for one, you were likely raised religious and you've learned how to spite your own "holy temple," not only with deeds but in your minds, your mental habits and cognitive hygiene.
Read a book, like Food of the Gods or something about the organic complexity and biodiversity of this world. Understand.
Stop fearing Nature, and understand how to become harmonious with it.
Psychiatrists are doctors; they can prescribe medication. Psychologists don't have to be doctors. They don't even have to treat humans. Perhaps they study humans, perhaps they study cats.
The rest of your post is similarly ignorant of the very real harm that can come from ignoring severe and enduring MH problems.
Perhaps Bipolar disorder is over diagnosed. Maybe a small number of people cope well without their meds. Meds do have unpleasant side effects. But most people with psychotic illnesses really need the meds to stay functional.
> And learn how to understand what your body is telling you, rather than treating it like it's some operating table experiment that you'd being graded to poke and prod.
I've talked to people who hear voices. They don't always want the voices to disappear, but they do want some techniques to use so they can know when the voice is just a voice and not real, and so they can cope with some of the negative affects of voices.
Is that what you're saying? If you are, fair enough.
But if you're saying that psychosis is just a different state of being, just a different part of the spectrum of normal and fine, well, you're wrong.
And how did you get "ignoring mental health problems?"
How did you get that? Honestly? How? I'm telling you to read up on how ancient mysticisms categorize these problems and relate them to advanced, therapeutic drug use.
Somehow you got "ignore the problems" when I explicitly tell you to go read alternative research on the topic.
Honestly, wtf? My post says "Go read book X" on the matter, and you want to start jumping to claims of "ignorance."
>Somehow you got "ignore the problems" when I explicitly tell you to go read alternative research on the topic.
The point he was making was that reading and relying on such material (ie. "ancient mysticisms") is liable to cause more harm. Explicitly telling someone to read alternative research doesn't mean a thing if that "research" is flawed.
One's time would likely be better spent reading modern research.
I think the most frustrating thing about your post is all the non-advice you give such as throwing around phrases like "become more harmonious with nature" and "understand".
That's bias. What makes popping pills and modern science less liable to harm? Even in modern drugs today we are seeing them modeled on magic mushrooms and exotic drugs cited by McKenna and related authors. -- We're not even on the same page as we speak here.
And that's because of bias. Moreover, I've cited authors who are leaders of these fields, who present at TED and speak in recent discussion forums. McKenna is modern. Stamets is modern.
You just don't read these people, and that's why I cited the madinamerica.com article.
You're just telling me about linguistic and intellectual biases that I'm already fully aware of, and that I tried to anticipate with my post.
And operative word: "if" -- "if" that research is flawed. What are you even arguing? I could argue that against modern medicine, but that is circumstantial and requires precision. What you are saying is not precise, and hardly even relevant; or rather it is too vague to be relevant. Any research can be flawed. But there is even a further question of interpretation of that research; hence why I say "understand." You're using broad strokes as if I am doing so, when I am not.
I honestly just think it's linguistic/information exchange bias going on here. I'm citing those I'm reading. You're telling me that anything could be inaccurate or falsehood; that doesn't get us anywhere.
Unfortunately there's a big problem with "off label use" of psychiatric medication.
But, yes, science means we use "weird" mystic concepts like "mindfulness" (from Buddhist meditation) because we know it works for some people and some mental health problems.
Where are you getting "ignorance" etc? I'm not espousing universals here. I'm not at all saying it's black or white. I too am speaking in generalization which can be subject to counterexample.
Read. May I add some color to my writing? Gosh.
If you're going to start throwing out "your wrong," I must ask you to read. Read.
And we're talking about schizophrenia. Why am I being charged with opinions that I haven't even expressed on psychosis? I'm not here to discuss the whole range of psychosis.
I've readed McKenna, Robert Anton Wilson, Antero Alli, etc.
Even studied Zen and vaious kind of meditation. And know what you mean.
But keep in mind that all that knowledge is somewhat buried, there are no modern "shamans" readily available, and if they exist, how would we differentiate them from charlatans?.
A person with this kind of "disorders" has a wrong map for reality, and i don't know if it's possible to self cure.
On the other hand all this kind of theories are not so mainstream and you will get massively downvoted for expressing your point of view on the matter.
On my very humble opinion, this so called disorders are problems with symbols assosiations, combined with very sensitive human beings. And where modern science tries to get the individual to adapt to the environment, older techniques tried to build a new map for reality, using the unique talents that every person has, and reordering the symbols on the mind.
Some similarities to this kind of work can be found in NLP (Bandler) and the work of Alejandro Jodorowsky.
Maybe shamanism is not the preferred theme in this forum, bu come on guys, shamans where the first hackers!
- Sorry if there are errors, i'm in a hurry and english is not my first language.
i don't see the big difference with what psychiatrist and psychologists actually do. i have been diagnosed with bipolar I after an intense manic and psychotic break, and the subject of my delusions was actually much of the mckenna RAW zen mysticism combo. it was quite instructive in a sense, and terrifying in another.
i was very relieved to find a competent psychiatrist, who prescribed me medication and immediately referred me to a "psychoeducation" group, which is basically a class (not therapy) about handling the illness. we were taught how both medication and behavioral techniques go hand in hand. that sounds very similar to the "body and soul" approach you can read about in RAW etc..., without the crazy. I can assure you that if you wrestle with delusions, the last you want is more crazy concepts designed to fuck with your mind. After that psychoeducation, I went to a psychologists and regularly do some CBT, which is mostly being told as an adult that you should tidy your room and go play outside a bit, and how to keep a balanced life.
now all these concepts and medications may lose their "magic" touch, but it is pretty much the same thing isn't it? it just sounds less funky to call someone a competent psychiatrist than calling him a shaman in touch with the chemicals of nature, or a competent psychologist a priest who can read your soul and keep you grounded in the natural world.
one thing i learnt too is that meditation is something that actually triggers mania and ultimately psychosis in me. this may sound stupid, but if you have mental issues and especially issues with psychosis or dissociation, don't start to experiment with substances and mental techniques on yourself without making sure you having someone watching out for you. and it's definitely easier to pay someone to do that than put that kind of burden on your family and friends.
I don't have experience in the psychiatric field, and you have an interesting and positive experience in that matter, and i congratulate you for that.
I'm against most of the new age mystic mumbo jumbo, but, my sensation about the subject is that the main difference is that modern mental science tries the symptoms, where primitive healers worked with the root causes (raw symbols) with the help of rituals, to give you an example of a mentioned author, Jodorowsky sais that "the brain accepts methapors as reality", accepting this premise you can elaborate, for example, a teatrical scene (or a ritual) where you face your problem, fight it, and solve it.
What we are missing is people that know how to orchestrate this sessions, because, as you said is very dangerous to someone with mental issues to experiment with this kind of things.
Off-topic: way cool to see the name Antero Alli mentioned on HN! Which of his books have you read? I am currently reading Angel Tech and The Eight-Circuit Brain.
Why not use github Pages and scrape the github repository for necessary data? It's all harmless recipe stuff anyway. Non-github users could be asked to use e-mail to place recipes, and can be informed that they can use markdown. Or even present a web form that sends an encrypted e-mail for them, employing that wicked JS textarea enhancer we saw the other day, for markdown syntax or even allow haml.
The github haml pages can have links station'd at the top or bottom to pre-fetch categories, previous, and next pages. The github Page Index can include a JS that builds the UI of the site via DOM manipulation, based on a lightweight Web app hosted elsewhere and called in via ajax.
You're overriding my dyslexic fonts with your inappropriate inline style just like how most developers (Facebook, Reddit, and a whole laundry list of others) fail to observe relative font-sizes or the good-sense settings of the browser[1] .
Now what am I supposed to do? I'm ALREADY using Stylish WITH "!important"; just imagine how systematic this problem is[2]. And yet the only response I typically get whenever I bring up this issue is that some know-it-all thinks I don't know how to customize my browser or whatever else. Or snide comments that such-and-such dyslexic font is "shit" or "ugly." Then I lose all of my street cred when I'm the one being mindful of accessibility (even if it is at the cost of garden variety aesthetic choices in the world of Helvetinauts).
Please, red flag me for irrelevance; I've taken this kind of flack before[3]. But I am getting absolutely sick of this. Stop overriding good design choices with bad ones.
_Why_ are you using inline styles? I'm going to keep shouting this until I get acknowledgment: no more fontwalls[4]!
I was in reading mode, and your poor development practices just ruined that. Now I need a bloody cigarette.
No matter what point you are trying to make, your post here comes across as random, rant-y and somewhat nonsensical. I tried going through your supporting links to understand your point, but I still don't quite understand your concept of a "fontwall". I think that you mean that content is inaccessible to you because you can't apply your dyslexic fonts to content which has overridden it, but that's just my guess.
If you want people to listen and understand what you are trying to say, you might want to take a breather and start writing more constructively.
I can completely understand where you are coming from, but you really need to adjust your tone and message if you want to convince people.
How is it that you merely "think" you've got it, but in your own words immediately after admitting that, you demonstrate quite clearly that you actually did in fact understand?
If you want to make friends, that's your prerogative. You were informed, and you demonstrate that you got my point. I don't care for your etiquette or aesthetics of communication.
[Added:] I see no lack of understanding of my point here, but only disagreeing opinion on what counts as an acceptable font, which is question begging, and factual inaccuracies.
And I want you to understand that this angers me. That is part of my point: I am angry, and yes, it is a rant. It's not clear to me how that is relevant or even a criticism. I am mad about this. I want that to be understood and clear. If you immediately picked up on my "rant-y" style, then I have succeeded at doing what it is I set out to do. At the same time, phrases like "absolutely sick," I am quite sure, tipped you off, and such phrases will tip most readers off. I honestly do not feel the need to add the disclaimer: "this is a rant." Most ranters don't, who are truly ranting, rather than being critical.
If what you mean to suggest is that rants exclude or prevent the flow of information, then as demonstrated by the numerous replies here, information was not impeded and critical dialogue is sitting along side and emotional/personal issue. I personally think it asks too much of one to set aside how they personally are affected, given the nature and gravity of the situation being mentioned (i.e., the scope and unwitting lack of sensitivity to dyslexia sufferers).
I have provided my arguments and points. And I am mad. It is quite clear to me that most of you are perfectly processing both of those informative gestures.
That depends on what your goals are. I want to surround myself with those who are willing to fervently argue their ideas, and those who do not or cannot: I have nothing to learn from them.
And it would be terribly presumptuous of you to assume that my persona given here is found in all of my social activities. If you assume this, you're not being fair (really, to yourself).
You need to understand that a handicapped person just hit a Web page, out of the hundreds, if not thousands, that are hit a day, that, in my understanding, just overrides that dyslexic person's crutch, that handicapped person's wheelchair. When that page loaded, I personally _felt like_ someone (accidentally) kicked my crutch out from under me, or criticized me because I am not able to perform as well because of a handicap. This is how accessibility issues play out[1]; people feel hurt and victimized by facts of their obscurity which they cannot control.
I am very confident that you are not fully appreciating the gravity of the issue here.
You're correct that your "rant-y" format does not exclude or prevent the flow of information, but what it does do is make people far less inclined to internalize or act on that information.
I assume your goal is to get people to say, "this is a problem that should be fixed, so I'm going to fix it". The tone and methods with which you're communicating in this discussion are much more likely to get people to say, "this is a problem that should be fixed, but the only people who care about it are assholes, so I see no reason to help them." You appear to be well-intentioned, and your anger is more than justified, but it's important to recognize when toning down your hostility (which, to be clear, doesn't necessarily mean masking your passion and ferver) is a necessary step towards enacting positive change.
Being penalized 1/100 of 1% of revenue doesn't really inspire a sense of urgency or "gravity". Seems like it might be worth it for companies to wait until they get sued before taking accessibility seriously.
Another possibility would be to post a blog/article which references and links all of the design practices you take offence with, and then diatribe so as not to clutter HN threads of discussion on the subject matter and not the design aspects of the site.
And honestly, I don't think this is an issue that needs to be addressed with heavy software or complicated programming gestures. So, for instance,
"One obvious quick and low-cost solution is to make a CNAME Record that renders the dyslexic font via CloudFlare; like mobile."
I just spurted that out while reviewing another forum where I have made the suggestion to render dyslexic fonts. The above suggestion would not have to impact anyone, and it is trivial to pull off. The outcome is there becomes a reserved DNS space for http://{dyslexic_contextualization}.{domain}.{ext}.
What is needed here is not more code, but agreement and strategy. But before all of that, an understanding that this is a problem, regardless of the number of people it affects. Dyslexia is a feature of nature; so pointing out that it only affects a small number says nothing about the future holds. And even further, dyslexia is a spectrum disorder, so it plausibly could be and probably is more widespread than we understand it. Most people live with it out of shame or fear the consequences of "coming out."
I'm _sure_ we're all on the same page with these points I've made, and that I really did not need to express them. Then again, the tech industry is hotly debating sexism as if women were "coming out of the closet": "I'm a programmer!"
@salemh You may not have noticed this, but all of this is incredibly relevant and spins off of the OP. I had that intuition shortly after posting, and it was confirm'd by the other poster who merely quoted the OP as a response to me.
I dig your suggestion, but your criticism I feel lacks sufficient observation.
Are you complaining about Hacker News fonts or Dave Winer's fonts? Because if your beef is with Dave Winer's fonts, you better email him or rant on his site directly. No one on Hacker News is responsible.
You went to a web page that you wanted to read, and it didn't let you override the font choice as it should have for good accessibility. You got mad.
I'd suggest a different approach. Take a deep breath, have that cigarette you need.
I'm might start out by sending a polite comment or email to Dave. "I was wanting to read your post, but your pages don't do this...."
Dave actually wrote the whole stack of software that manages his writing. Some of it is quite amazing, and some of it is probably older than you are, so it might have some issues ;-). He is actually someone who could fix valid problems. He's a good guy. So treat him that way. Be polite. You can see your current "get mad" approach isn't getting a good reception here, or probably anywhere else. If you want to change the world, you need to learn to communicate, not shout.
I'm going to post this again, because I'm simply getting fed up with well-intentioned advice that tries to pass in subtly some kind of manifest authority (ageism, expertise, moral high ground):
"One does not have to be evil to be hated. In fact, it’s often the case that one is hated precisely because one is trying to do right by one’s own convictions. It is far too easy to be liked, one merely has to be accommodating and hold no strong convictions. Then one will gravitate towards the centre and settle into the average. That cannot be your role. There are a great many bad people in the world, and if you are not offending them, you must be bad yourself. Popularity is a sure sign that you are doing something wrong."
-- http://halfhalf.posterous.com/dont-work-be-hated-love-someon...
What makes you right and that ^ wrong? Given that you are trying to guide me, for some reason, I think this is an absolutely fair question. Why follow your advice and not Adrian Tan's? I'd absolutely love to understand where you are coming from since what I have quoted, and then twice, outright contradicts what you are saying.
And it actually fits well within the framework of this entire thread, even if it does not get my dyslexic-accessibility agenda further.
Further, it might be amazing software. But that is an opinion. Plone is amazing software, but I wouldn't work in it. Diazo is amazing software, I wouldn't work in it. Drupal is amazing; wouldn't work in it. Joomla, etc., etc., etc.
I know things can be fixed. My concern is right now, what are the consequences of architectural decisions like his software? -- In my mind, immediately: larger Web footprint, inaccessible to dyslexics, more costly (even if it is tiny, but that is relative total footprint).
I'm not calling you names or insulting your intelligence. I'm being critical, and expressing frustration in an intimate way. The all caps are a rare thing, but as I said: I am mad. I want you to know that. So please stop re-iterating that it is not "effective." I don't think anyone here has the background in sociology or communications to really support their arguments on that matter. Just one programmers' opinion to another.
> what I have quoted, ... outright contradicts what you are saying.
I guess I don't see the contradiction. Your beloved quote seems to be saying that you should not to be afraid of being hated by people who disagree with your convictions. I think most people on HN would agree that having accessibility on all web pages is a good thing. I'm sure that Dave is not for denying the web to dyslexics. He is not a "bad" person who's hatred you should desire. I've followed his writings for 20 some years, and he is an interesting, complex, thoughtful, good guy. In this case, programmer to programmer, you have a technical problem to solve.
I hope you read the next section of your link, about the importance of Love, as well.
Wait, since when are inline styles a poor development practice? Obviously they're a bad choice for large sites, but for a simple webpage (like a blog) that never needs to be extended and doesn't have repeating elements with lots of formatting, it seems to be a justifiable choice. For blog post content, especially.
Is "!important" in your custom stylesheet not overriding it? It's supposed to, what is the technical problem?
Also, what are fontwalls? You link to a paragraph with a typeface that is exceedingly difficult to read (is that the point?), and then the rest appears to be in hieroglyphics.
1. Code bloat: "font-family: Crimson Text; font-size: 20px; font-weight: 400; line-height: 135%;" appears 9 times. For the same reason in the CSS world we're trying to eliminate unnecessary and unwieldy div-itis and non-semantic classes. It's about reducing footprint: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-BX4N8egEc. If you cannot see the logical next step that each of his Web pages may be doing the exact same thing, and thus his entire site; and further he might be using a plugin or theme that perpetuates this bad practice... if you cannot see that, then fair. But those are the kinds of problems I reflect on in my studies.
2. I'm not even sure what you're getting at with your second question. I wouldn't be posting this if my "!important" worked. If anything, Stylish may not benefit from the well-noted point that !important overrides inline styles. If that's the case: fascinating new problem we've discovered here. I am overriding paragraph elements with "!important"; that is the fact of the situation. Is there a technical problem? Perhaps.
3. Fontwalls are situations like this: a dyslexic reader is incapable of reading the content in place because the typesetting makes it inaccessible. So, like with your criticism of my typesetting on my Website: the OP has used "a typeface that is exceedingly difficult to read."
I mean no offense, but you're effectively writing a post about how people are neglecting 5-10% of the population who are dyslexics in a font that is utterly unreadable to the other 90-95%. I'm not exactly sure whether that will have the wanted effect.
It's not clear to me what you are trying to say. Accessibility issues have to logically start somewhere.
Do you understand what the wanted effect is? Because I'm pretty sure the gist of this entire discussion is: Don't use inline styles, which any front-end developer worth their salt would already agree to[1], outside of the accessibility debate. But what is more, accessibility might be one of many reasons why a front-end developer would raise the point about inline style at all.
What I'm trying to say is that you can't make a point about accessibility by making the point (not fully but quite) inaccessible to most people. I agree that this is an issue, but you're not pointing it out in the best way possible. In fact, you're doing exactly what you're trying to get rid of.
What is needed is something like Dyslite[1] but free (and probably better). A browser plugin that overrides font-settings to use dyslexia-optimized fonts. Ranting about inline-styles doesn't help anyone. Clearly, one should be able to override even inline-styles for accessibility rather than forbidding web designers their use, even though I agree it's not exactly a good practice anyway.
Then again, I like to say that there's always a time and place for everything. Damnit even goto's have some valid use cases.
Dyslite is a software product. This is an impromptu conversation on a message board.
If that's what you mean by your concluding comments. Yes, I should be working on software for these issues, and I am; -- but in my morning reading time, my crutch was kicked out from under me. If you want to say that you disagree with my style, that's fine. I disagree with yours. Most people, most of the time, disagree when it comes to details, and certainly, even further, on opinions of style. I'm not going to lose sleep over people disagreeing with my diction. If I did that, then I'd never get any sleep. (That is, I have not, and I will not change my style. I'm being myself, and using my own voice.)
And it still isn't even clear why this is the case, that my Stylish "!important" overrides are not overriding the inline styles of that Web page. I've provided a link to my post which contains my Stylish snippet. You can see it for yourself, that this should not be happening, given the rules of CSS Specificity.
OK, I'm not really sure you understand CSS and blogs. Blog posts tend to be self-contained documents where the styles have to be inline, because each post might have completely different formatting, and is often generated by a WYSIWYG tool. It's not a problem, it's just how blogs usually work.
And yeah, the !important should be working. I've never used Stylish, but something's clearly broken -- in any case, your beef should be with Stylish or your browser, not with the author/developer of the blog. If you stick to a user stylesheet in your browser it should be guaranteed to work -- after all, that's the whole point of them, so that people with visual disabilities can override default styling.
So, I don't really get what the problem is. Inline styles are an integral part of the web (and are particularly, and correctly, suited to blog posts), and user stylesheets generally allow you to override them, so you can use dyslexic fonts if you choose.
Oh man. You could've at least checked the YouTube video before venturing into accusations of incompetence. I mean, what the BALLS, dude? I'm supposed to keep my cool in communities like this? What is this baseless and graceless intellectual bravado? And I'm the bad guy because I use an intimate style and diction... Eesh, what I've been responding to in this thread, with this particular user, I think it is absolutely fair to say, has just been careless hubris. After I respond with, roughly: mitigating "div-itis and non-semantic classes" he rails me with "I don't think you know what X and Y are". He might as well have added "bro." Again, [BALLS](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C8GWIV4jzA).
You haven't even tested it, nor do you even really know what Stylish is, it seems, and you're arguing with conviction.
This changes everything on that scripting.com page to Comic Sans for me:
* { font-family: "Comic Sans MS" !important; }
I'm using Stylish 1.0 on Chrome 23.0.blahblah and 1.3.something in Firefox 18. (Amusingly, that line causes the MENUS in Firefox to be rendered in Comic Sans!)
Are you sure that your CSS override is correctly worded? Are you using a different version of Stylish?
Okay... You're overriding font-family, not font-size or any other parameters. This means that you'll override the font shape, and no other parameters. If you really need to have a particular font to help you function despite your condition, then you really gotta ensure that you have it.
What limited knowledge I have of CSS selector precedence tells me that a top-level override is the only way to ensure that the fonts that you require to be able to read the internet without raging are applied.
Why are you suggesting software you don't even know the feature set of? Your second statement is factually incorrect.
Yes, I use Readability. What does "preferred font" mean to you? The aforementioned software allows for a fixed set of fonts that correspond to color themes.
I genuinely believe this is off-topic; or better yet, it is a "rabbit hole," if you will. I prefer the idea of using Stylish on the Website itself. (And so bear in mind that we're already talking about a 2-degree override. Not to mention becoming dependent on Readability.)
Yeah, I realized the coincidence after his Web page loaded and I was immediately given a headache by yet another serif font.
It kind of does feel like the world is throwing "everything" at you when all the books are rendered in fonts that give you headaches. All the Websites too. And the Newspapers.
That personal point aside. Inline styles are well known bad practice. It's a shock to me that this is being argued on Hacker News.
With classes like "divOutlineItem" and inline CSS padding, not one of you bothers to note that. It's like I'm wasting by bloody time learning best practices only to bring them back to developers who just do not seem to care. And I'm supposed to yield to claims of "amazing software" and age-authority.
I'm not even sure what to say anymore. You're absolutely right. I, as a Web Developer, for whatever that is worth, have no business being here in the Hacker News community.
"One does not have to be evil to be hated. In fact, it’s often the case that one is hated precisely because one is trying to do right by one’s own convictions. It is far too easy to be liked, one merely has to be accommodating and hold no strong convictions. Then one will gravitate towards the centre and settle into the average. That cannot be your role. There are a great many bad people in the world, and if you are not offending them, you must be bad yourself. Popularity is a sure sign that you are doing something wrong."
--http://halfhalf.posterous.com/dont-work-be-hated-love-someon...
You incorrectly assume malice on the part of the blog author. Frustration makes it easy to see the world as people who are for your position and others who are against your position. In this situation it seems far more likely that the author is unaware that his site works badly with your setup.
The quote is about making your cause succeed. Here you could have won by sending an email. Instead you shouted at people on HN. Nobody learned anything about making the internet better for you. Maybe your goal is just to let people know that this makes you angry, you succeeded. Well done. But you didn't follow through with why they should care, so no change is effected.
Its good to be hated by those who hate your just cause. Maybe its less good to be hated by those who are simply ignorant of it?
I'd say you missed the point of the quote entirely.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
I am asking _why are you using inline styles?_ I'm trying to explain "stupidity," not "malice." You're interpreting assumption of malice from my tone, style, and frustration. And I am frustrated, furious even. I'm furious about typesetting. I'd happily go down being that guy. The guy who foams at the mouth and rages about typesetting; what's more, when it's about liberating dyslexic users.
Yes, go ape-shit about typesetting.
I'm citing my sources, and making my arguments. You're not reading me aright. And that's a matter of "opinion filter"; that's all I can really say about that. We don't read the same self-help books. Where I come from, Nietzsche and Mencken are the tour de force, not diplomatic tongue. My apologies if you feel that is inappropriate for Web development practices; but I honestly do not care. And moreover, I just saw Torvalds flip off Nvidia. So, what? Who do I follow? Not one of you has the right idea on personal brand.
I'm asking why. The question is why. Why? It's "why?" "Why?"
I'm calling them "poor development practices." How do you get blame out of that?
I didn't even know of the existence of a decent open source wireframing tool. Although I haven't used it long enough to give it the "decent" label or my seal of approval, it's worth a try.
I recently had a headhunter e-mail me, offer no job description, but directed me to the website of the company, which makes iOS/iPhone apps. Two hours later he pinged me again asking if I read his previous e-mail.
Nowhere in my many online résumés do I say I have iOS experience or that I am even interested in that kind of work. Moreover, I stress, emphasize, my interest in hypermedia and W3C Standards.
This market is saturated with mismanagement, and there is a clear bottleneck. So, for instance, "hypermedia." Most developers and "techs" I mention this term to obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. And just entertain the fact that I made some jargonish sounding word, thus giving me the benefit of the doubt.
But now I cannot find work I want to do because hardly anyone knows what hypermedia is, and that is _not_ my fault. I'm staying abreast with my industry, and now I am suffering for it.
There is a bottleneck here, as with most "recruitment" industries. I don't even want to begin thinking about open source typography, with all the Microsoft Web Safe Fonts flying around.
— http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/02/why-anti-authoritarians-...
There are too many everyday people armed with psychiatric terms.
Stop it. Many nootropic and psychotropic drugs induce many of those hallucinations. Accept it. And learn how to understand what your body is telling you, rather than treating it like it's some operating table experiment that you'd being graded to poke and prod. Your body is a diagnostician, albeit a cryptic one that has needs, demands and quirks of its own. Most of you simply do not know how to live in your skin because, for one, you were likely raised religious and you've learned how to spite your own "holy temple," not only with deeds but in your minds, your mental habits and cognitive hygiene.
Read a book, like Food of the Gods or something about the organic complexity and biodiversity of this world. Understand.
Stop fearing Nature, and understand how to become harmonious with it.