Show HN: Whosfiring
whosfiring.com
whosfiring.com
I'm really not sure why this is on front page of HN? This is just random messages board without any verification. Anyone can sign in and post message anonymously saying: "company foo is firing". There is no way to know if 'foo' is actually firing.
Consider it NSFW (for now) if your workplace filters for those things.
Edit: The original name was apparently also a pun (Fast Company).
RIP Fucked Company.
I wonder what pud is up to?
Really need the ability to search by company name - so we can find out how a company is before joining (or while inside).
You mean like glassdoor?
- email notification similar to haveibeenpwned e.g. for company email
- company logo (e.g. using Clearbit logo api)
- fields for amount of jobs cut, main location/area
- some way for people who are impacted to confirm the cuts (e.g. via company email domain) similar to upvotes maybe
- related firings of the same company
- company search
I don't like the misuse of the word "firing" which has become incredibly prevalent. To fire someone means there was a performance issue. most of the things listed on that site are just lay offs, not actual "firings". It would be good to know which companies actually "fired", vs which ones "laid off". there's a big difference.
As coders we have intrinsically an asymmetry of information that is weakening us in our capacity to negotiate our wedges.
Every piece of small data (hence information) that can help us is good news.
I may bring it back as time permits, but wanted to say thanks.
I feel like I missed a big part of SV culture by being in high school back then. Would be cool to experience again.
As it goes on you get less gut punched, but it's never nice. It's why companies that don't deserve it have a lot of employee loyalty
But recruiters often use these news to contact people that potentially got laid off or is at risk of being laid off, and sometimes that is of great help.
Probably the website could also offer a job board?
We had really successful hires, picking very good people. Most were happy to continue in our start-up. We had good funding and that helped.
It's getting out of control since the old geek jobs article on Indiehackers. There's now at least one of these posts per week and they're less and less interesting. It's not showing cool tech or a cool idea, it's just trying to capitalize on the interest here and using HN as an early marketing channel.
I mean come on. This is literally an app that allows to add an element to a list because there was a succesful "Ask HN : who's firing ?" post a couple of weeks ago.
Please make it stop
I actually find this idea very interesting and would love to subscribe to notifications about which companies are laying off workers or see trends about how many people are being laid off per week/month. As an investor, this is a nice data point that shows the health of the tech sector.
What exactly is wrong with capitalizing on interest here? Sounds smart to me - you know you're solving a real problem and you have a free marketing channel... So many people built stuff that nobody wants.
That being said, i do see the interest of the indicator. My comment is more about the trend highlighted by this post.
It's a canary in the coal mine, and if you work in tech, it should interest you.
Yeah, I'm starting to feel containers are the new Erlang here.
Taken a step further, a webapp that tracks businesses that emerge from different online communities would be super useful for improving commercial targeting of social media, and with a delay on content updates baked in for free users could probably find a good group of paying ones.
The best way to kill a fad is to build it up to the point where it loses its novelty.
Ignore posts that don't interest you, but don't discourage people from starting side projects. You never know what these side projects morph into.
The site shows blank page without JS enabled. I did not understand why one would need one megabyte of minified Javascript to display a list of 10 items. Probably it is because the developers were too busy learning trendy JS frameworks and do not know about HTML and server side page generation (in PHP this could be done much easier without JS frameworks and API).
And to make page load even slower after loading a megabyte of Javascript they make an additional API request to load a list of links. Hey, you could just send this list as a HTML file from the start.
Also it looks like they do not know about HTML <script> tags and encode configuration as a value of a <meta> tag.
The page has small white padding below footer.
It's probably because you opted to disable one of the essential web technologies in your browser. Plenty of websites are written as SPAs nowadays. This is like complaining that pages are black on white because you disabled CSS. Or that you can't see websites at all because you uninstalled your browser.
It is entirely unlike the examples you gave. Especially because his browser does show ~99% of the internet properly (with various degrees of functionality, but still something does come up), and that there spiders, proxies, screenreaders, and other useful software which will also see nothing on this page.
I've bookmarked this site: "Testing a React-driven website’s SEO using “Fetch as Google" https://medium.freecodecamp.com/using-fetch-as-google-for-se...
That talks about this. Not had a chance to verify this. just a fyi.
It's a static list of items. Hardly very efficient to load all that javascript, do a server request, just to display a list is it.
Still, this guy did it (took a long time between this site being up and the post on HN that instigated it) while the rest of the readers in that thread who thought it would be a good idea, including me, didn't. So kudos for 'just doing it' anyway.
Edit: I checked hours ago and then it was clean but apparently there is no moderation on it either... So this site would've taken literally less than an hour including hosting setup to put together? Still I didn't do it while I did like FuckedCompany and think it's good to have something like it.
It wouldn't run without JavaScript being enabled, for one.
Only they wanted to drm javascript sent to the browser. We got rid of Flash only to see a new hydra head emerge. People clamoring for javascript applications should be careful what they wish for. They just might get it.
Would you ever make the argument: "this website would be so much easier to use with a little Javascript, but Javascript is bad for the environment, so it should remain without"?
If not, the environment isn't actually a factor in the reasoning process. It's just a club to wield when it supports what you've already decided is the correct answer.
Now I agree that in the case we're discussing, the JS actually brings a negative difference as it doesn't enhance anything and makes the website unusable without JS and thus a lot less accessible. So here the environmental factor is secondary.
Suppose the environmental impacts of the HTML-only page and the JS-driven page were flipped, but the user experience remained exactly the same - the JS-driven page still takes longer to download, uses more memory, and doesn't work unless JS is enabled; but it's marginally better for the environment, by the same amount that the HTML-only page is better in the real world. Do you now think the JS-driven page is preferable?
If not, you don't get to use the environment to argue for the HTML-only page. It doesn't sway you, so you shouldn't use it to sway others.
About your second §: your example makes absolutely no sense, and additionally it's not at all an "all other thing being equal" case. But if I had to attempt to answer you anyway, I'd say that in that case the fact that the better environmental impact of the JS-driven version is an argument that it has for it, and at least lessen the difference in the overall evaluations of the two options.
If you want to take it seriously, I recommend quantifying the impact as a first step. If your calculations show it's worth taking seriously, I'll happily change my mind.
"lessen the difference in the overall evaluations of the two options" is not enough. "This is a serious factor that I care about and you should care about it too, but if it was completely reversed, that wouldn't actually change the outcome": I'm not buying it.
Disabling JS displays nothing at all, while changing text and background color is a progressive enhancement.
Content should still be accessible without JavaScript, even if, perhaps, in a less convenient way, i.e., every click reloads the entire page
It's the World Wide Web. Being accessible to everyone is the whole point.
We have other platforms that target specific markets. That's fine. But we only have one Web.
It's not an arbitrary rule, it's just that they always have.
That's the hole point of progressive enhancement, you don't start requiring some technology as soon as it reaches x% market share and ignore the remaining minority. You build on top and offer a better experience to those that can or want.
In the apps world, it's usual to draw a line on a set of minimum system requirements and expect that line to move forward as the years go by.
But this is the Web, being accessible should be a priority.
I got used to this comfortable way of browsing the web and seeing more sites that don't work without JS doesn't make me happy.
However a "website" has the purpose of 'displaying information' -- essentially some form of text + images akin to a newspaper page. In those cases JavaScript is an enhancement but ought not be a requirement.
For a web application though, not using JavaScript is like a car pulled by donkeys. Sure you can sit in it and try to steer but it doesn't provide optimal functionality.
However on the other hand, anyone expecting a good web experience in 2016 without JavaScript is fighting a Quixotic battle.
You're making a conscious decision based on the trade-offs at hand and saying that every website should double down on server side rendering to cater to your intolerance of how modern web browsing works. That's just not feasible.
If your site looks like garbage when I turn the javascript off, fair enough. If your site breaks because it needs to do client side process, then that's on me, fair call.
But if your website can't even load text without javascript, then you're using a carpenters square as a hammer. Loading text is what html does. That's it's one and only job, and it's really fucking good at it. Way better at it than javascript is.
If your website cannot load text without javascript, you're a shitty developer, because you're rejecting the objectively correct tool and shoehorning a far more complex tool into it's place. That's how you get security vulnerabilities and high maintenance costs. It's the very definition of over engineering.
It's more likely that the OP uses this JS framework a lot and knows it well, so it was quicker for them to build it this way.
That said, I try to load a static version of the compiled result as part of the skeleton HTML. Even if it gets overwritten by the SPA afterwards, it makes things look faster.
Everyone is talking about X, but I've never used it. Perhaps I can build something simple just to dip my toe into X.
When starting from react-create-app it's also super easy to deploy to gh-pages: npm run deploy
It's really beautiful to work with and getting better every week.
"This page requires JavaScript."
Ah, this might explain why it's down.
In the future, if the site survives and gets bigger, they will surely think about corner use-cases like yours and work some time in server-side rendering.
Also Ember documentation doesn't give any reasoning why (or when) one should or should not use their framework. But they have a mustache on a front page.
In the wild, yeah, js failovers are a good idea. But this is a show HN...the author had no idea if it would even work and just wanted to get something out. Instead of substantive comments designed to help the author build a better application, you instead choose to go on a failover holy war??? That's not only weak, it's uninteresting and absolutely not helpful.
Clever idea though.
What specifically were your reasons for using rails for it?
I have several years experience using Rails so that would be my primary reason. Rails 5 has the ability to use Actioncable (a framework for handling websockets) which would be useful for notifications and chat.