Outing your identity to whom? You must know that Twitter already knows about your alt accounts right? I wouldn't panic just yet, they will probably just derank unverified users in the replies of tweets so spam bots can finally die.
That someone who's on your side is inherently supplying money in the form of taxes to their Gov who is committing war crimes. We don't want sanctions to continue indefinitely, just until they get their troops out of Ukraine.
And if you don't have or can't afford a Pixel, you can check if your device is supported by my https://divestos.org project. Tested booting on 70+ devices with automated kernel CVE patching and monthly security updates.
One of the reasons why HN has stayed relatively under the radar for the majority of people is in part because of its perceived "bad design". I, for one, love the fact that it's not attracting a wider audience. You have reddit for that.
There's "bad design" (subjective) then there's "fails to meet accessibility standards" (objective). HN would not pass WCAG 2.0 AA for a large number of reasons. Tap targets and illegible text being big ones.
It doesn't matter if you can zoom into text when downvoted comments have so little contrast with the background (#ddd over #f6f6ef). The "X minutes ago", "hide", "edit" comment header links even fail without zooming.
Agreed, it's not accessible; if you write your own accessible theme, it will have an accessible theme.
Your apartment building doesn't have a wheelchair ramp? That's on purpose. If you don't agree with it it's trivial to buy a bag of concrete and build one.
> Your apartment building doesn't have a wheelchair ramp? That's on purpose. If you don't agree with it it's trivial to buy a bag of concrete and build one.
That's a bad metaphor. First it's not possible to build a wheelchair ramp in your apartment building without affecting everyone else. Second, a custom CSS is very easy to make compared to a wheelchair ramp. Third, the comments being hard to read is, again, on purpose. I don't know the precise reason behind it, from what I understand it's part of the numerous tools that HN has to try to be a better place for discussion online than the rest. Some other tools seems to be: dead comments not being visible by default, new accounts having their names highlighted, the "reply" button not being here on "deep" threads in the "regular tree view".
If you don't agree with this decision, that's fine but that doesn't mean everyone is aligned with you.
I don't think it's that hard for non web developers. The rule is commtext { color: black; }. I think that adding an option (like showdead) would be better, as it doesn't require people to take the time to find out by themselves. Again, your comparaison doesn't really hold.
> Being inaccessible on purpose doesn't change the fact that it's inaccessible.
No it's not, it's more complicated: https://pastebin.com/aMYiGr05 (and there's no "commtext" class). So it's literally harder than you think, and you're presumably a developer. So how about the average user?
> It explains why it still is though.
Um, ok? And the building only has stairs because the architect didn't consider the needs of people that use assistive devices like wheelchairs. What's your point? "Why?" was not in question.
There is a commtext class tough. Tested on Chrome and Firefox. I don't know what your linked pastebin does but if you just want all the comments to show up as black text, the rule commtext { color: black; } in the body is all you need. Please check that kind of information by yourself before assuming that I'm wrong.
> Um, ok? And the building only has stairs because the architect didn't consider the needs of people that use assistive devices like wheelchairs.
Using metaphors doesn't help, they don't hold. Unless you assume that there is some people that are considered undesirable and that are also being kept out by having only stairs? And that aren't correlated to people that use assistive devices like wheelchairs?
> What's your point? "Why?" was not in question.
Why is why not in question? HN breaks accessibility guidelines in an easily fixable ways for reasons that are related to the primary purpose of the website. I think at this point it's just a difference of values between us. You seem to think that accessibility guidelines should matter above everything, I think it's fine to break them when it's needed for the "purpose" of the website. One other example of that would be "old internet" website, with flashing text, non-legible text and everything. On these websites, not respecting the guidelines is fine for me.
Do you understand what a "class" is in HTML? Do you understand that the class "commtext" doesn't appear anywhere in the source code for HN? The comment colors are controlled by classes like "c00" etc. Chrome has a tool called "DevTools" you can use that will show you. Here's the CSS for this site: https://news.ycombinator.com/news.css
Again, you don't understand it, but want to tell everyone else how easy it is...
> not respecting the guidelines is fine for me
in contrast I think everyone should be able to use the web, that it should be accessible. This isn't important to you, but sometimes you have to think about other people with a limited set of abilities in a compassionate way. The GP mentions "bad design" and I mentioned an objective measure: text that can't be read by someone without writing code.
Why are you looking at the CSS and not at the HTML? Look at the HTML, and you'll see that every comment is inside an HTML element (usually a span) that has a commtext class.
> Again, you don't understand it, but want to tell everyone else how easy it is...
Again, you haven't checked and just assume you are right.
We can continue the conversation about values once you've learned how to use "show source" or the inspector.
This is an often repeated claim, but I've never found it plausible.
The reasons this forum has remained under the radar for the majority of people are more likely related to it being hosted on a subdomain of a site almost no one has even heard of, it being called "Hacker News" (which immediately limits its mainstream appeal) and its content not being shared on popular social media sites outside of the population that already knows about it. Plus, this community has kind of a bad reputation in many tech circles, so many potential users avoid it like the plague.
The design isn't keeping anyone away - Craigslist has a similar low-res design and the mainstream has no problem with it. Old Reddit was similar to HN, and 4chan is even more arcane, and both have huge userbases.
The only people who ever complain about Hacker News' layout are its own users.
Because Teslas pose a risk to people who did not throw money at Musk. I didn’t sign-up for the beta program, so I’m pretty pissed to be an unwilling participant.
Yep, driving your car is the most dangerous things a person can do in an ordinary day, but that hasn't stopped us from making them or using them, has it?
There has now been a history of over a hundred years, wherein cars have been driven.
We normally require a minimum age before a prospective driver may obtain a learner's permit to drive within a city, unlike this FSD, which in the linked video drove like a drunk driver.
Human driving tests are hilariously easy. I bet it would pass with flying colors.
Driving in downtown Oakland was incredibly complex with all sorts of unusual features, driving the course the car did in the video would have stressed me out a little, and I've been driving for 24 years. Full self driving does need to handle those situations to be trustworthy, but for highway driving and sedate suburban settings it's probably just fine.
Human driving tests in USA are hilariously easy.
In Israel you must take 8 or 12h of theory, after this written exam, followed by 30h of driving lessons. At this point if teacher thinks that you not gonna kill anyone, will make you internal driving test in driving school. If you pass, he will submit you to state driving test (you can't sign up by yourself).
Driving test takes 40min, through city (including all possible variations of parking) and highway on unpredictable route. I think less than half manage to pass it on first attempt.
If you passed, you get "new driving license" with a bunch of limitations (no passengers, supervision of experienced driver for 1 year, etc). If you get a violation of anything, license is taken and back to driving test.
After few years there is mandatory refresh course of (advanced) theory with exam. If you fail exam, back to driving school you go.
Edit: add into the mix, crazy, Mediterranean style driving on streets where exam takes place
they become crazy past test. environmental pressure and evolutionary selection :)
but, from my vague memories, when you sign up to theory lessons you need to bring note from doctor that you are healthy and have no history of mental disorders (serious stuff) and such
> Human driving tests are hilariously easy. I bet it would pass with flying colors.
Driving tests are indeed way too easy, however, the level of driving seen in these Tesla videos would get any human driver a fail on the test. Just the constant indecisive jerking of the wheel would be a fail, let alone all the near crashes.
By that logic no potential new technology can ever be dangerous. What if it turns out FSD is less safe than humans because the technology doesn’t work? Plenty of people got sold dangerous flying machines before flight was actually invented.
