Hacker News Reader

Comment by dagw | Hacker News Reader

Single page collection of the actual tweets for people who don't want to try to read a massive tweet thread: https://tttthreads.com/thread/919897406031978496

View on HN

That site has coinhive on it and started maxing out one of my cores.

One of my many ad-blocking extensions blocked it.

Everyone who says ad-blocking is immoral is welcome to write me a check to help offset my power bill.

And you’re welcome to write a check to the people who’s server resources you’re using without supporting them too.

He's not using any server resources, he's accessing a service that people willingly put up. There is no legal or moral contract that he then has to execute all the crap code they happen to stuff into the HTTP response.

This also misses the main point. People try to argue, like you're doing here, that publishers need to survive and so you shouldn't ad block. I used to do that with reddit, until I started noticing page loads that wouldn't end and continuous network usage. Reactivating the ad blocker solved that. The reality of the situation is that ad networks are malicious actors and need to be handled as such.

I am using server resources, but I don't buy into the premise that I must use a particular javascript-enabled client to access an HTTP resource.

If you want me to pay you, tell me to pay you, don't just reach into my pocket and start plucking out loose change.

The main point is Viking textiles. Adblock and web payment methods are not the main point, no matter how interesting they may be to you both.

Many sites do have a TOS that prohibits altering their code. The question would be: does selectively choosing not to run certain code constitute altering it? The world seems to have decided the answer is no.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...

https://safari-extensions.apple.com/details/?id=com.el1t.uBl...

I had never heard of coinhive. Is the idea that, instead of using ads or direct payment, the user allows the website to mine for "money" using the client's computational resources? That's actually a pretty cool concept.

The problem is that the user does not "allow" the website to use their CPU and, more importantly, battery. Rather, it is done behind their back.

That's why I said "concept," not "implementation." There is a difference.

Edit: To be clear, if it was opt-in, whereby you got to choose if you would rather pay money, view ads, or offer cpu cycles in order to view a site, I could see it catching on.

I wonder who many CPU-seconds it would take to 'pay' the equivalent of one ad-view

Good question. In my mind the users would just run the code for the duration they were on the site- like that @home stuff from years ago, but while browsing a particular site.

It is an interesting concept yes. Also it has the merit of actually accurately measuring the time one spends on the site. (As browsers can throttle JavaScript on tabs which are not in front). How to communicate this to the users is a bit hard though. Should the site show ads and somewhere have a toggle to switch to mining? Would people actually go there?

Or maybe one of those lovely modal overlays that has the user choose the poison.

Wow, write a damn blog post and tweet that. 1/60, really?

There's a real reason why tweet-chains like this work, and a big part of it is that blogs are separate from social networks and you have to use a mediocre link to attract views, while twitter-chains are inherently integrated into the network, so you're not linking to the content, you're directly sharing it.

I understand that the limitations of twitter make it a difficult format to express it, but like most mediums with major limitations, these limitations can breed creativity and greatness.

There's a reason why a Facebook post goes viral on Facebook a lot easier than anywhere else. Same reason why twitter-chains are successful.

I'm sure blogger posts are popular on blogger though.

Except it didn't actually work—when I read it the messages stopped at about 31/60, then twitter started showing replies and I could never find #32 an later. Blogs don't have that problem. Twitter is pretty useless for real communication.

You should realize that I wasn't saying "thing works for you individually" and rather was saying "thing works generally and is succeeding"

I'm sorry you had a bad user experience.

However your anecdote does not invalidate the reality that tweet chains are far more popular than blogs for spreading analysis of news today. They are extremely popular and successful, even if you have personally failed to use them as you would like.

This, IMO, is like someone experiencing motion sickness while using an Oculus Rift and then boldly proclaiming all of VR to be a complete failure.

Slightly better, but could have still done without the numbering and large spaces between lines. Really, can't wait for Twitter to just die already.

I think Twitter is good when it's used for its intended purpose, but I definitely agree with you--When you start telling some epic story and end every tweet in "1/X", you should probably just be writing a blog post.

why doesn't twitter create this feature ?! it my be easy to just follow up the replies on every tweet and the read the hole content at the same time, not bit by bit to the point where you forget where you were.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com