Hacker News Reader

Comment by web007 | Hacker News Reader

> Gemini will remain as it is, frustrating anyone trying to extract value out of it.

Why am I going to use anything if I'm not trying to extract value? I don't mean in the sense of "make money off of lusers", I mean as in "do something that provides value for my effort".

I used gopher to "extract value" 25 years ago, but it turns out I want inline links and images and formatting and interaction (and compression and caching et al) because they're really useful. Look no further than HN for the Gemini ideal use-case, but even here the experience would be worse because of its restrictions.

Reading the spec, Gemini seems like it wants to be the elitist / hipster version of both gopher and HT(TP|ML). It forgets that a lot of user-agent features are pro-user, even if they've been co-opted for nefarious means. It's the CLI tech nerd's dream of a user interface, and discounts both the evolution of the web and of UI/UX design over the past 30 years.

View on HN

Those who use Gemini find value in it. Their definition of value may be different. It may be expressed in terms of the type of community they wish to participate in, the type of environment they wish to expose themselves to, the hobbies they pursue, how they entertain themselves, or any other reason that keeps them returning.

Painting people with negative stereotypes simply because they seek something different from their online experience is uncalled for. Nothing compels people to use Gemini aside from their own personal interest. Its imprint upon the world is so minuscule that it is impossible to complain of incidental impacts. Simply put, it will not affect the lives of those who choose to ignore it. Contrast that to the web, which is virtually impossible to escape while remaining functional in the modern world.

And why paint it in terms of negatives? People tend to compare Gemini to a crippled version of the web simply because that's what most of the world uses, but is more accurate to claim it is a modernized version of Gopher. It simplifies linking to other documents. It is possible to reformat text for small screens. It adds a layer of security. These are all positives.

> Those who use Gemini find value in it.

The fact that your primary answer is a tautology is telling.

I'm asking what value I should find from it, what value I get from going down this bespoke, inaccessible, poorly tooled path versus using the web with it's widely-used tools, billions of users and a million onramps?

> Nothing compels people to use Gemini aside from their own personal interest.

Nothing compels me to use it, but nothing incentivizes me to use it, either. I'd like a static site generator for my blog. Why would I pick Gemini over Jekyll, Hugo, etc.? That's the missing part of the story.

> And why paint it in terms of negatives? People tend to compare Gemini to a crippled version of the web simply because that's what most of the world uses, but is more accurate to claim it is a modernized version of Gopher.

People tend to compare Gemini to a crippled version of the web simply because that's what it is. All of your arguments on how it's better than Gopher ignore the fact that the web has all of those same features.

It's negative because the web already did that, it's already a modernized version of Gopher. That's why we use it and not Gopher. That battle was lost when either NCSA Mosaic or Netscape Navigator was released 20something years ago.

There's a difference between delivering value (a user searches for or accesses a resource and fairly expects a resource to deliver a value) and extracting value (a predator inserts itself into the user->searching->accessing->resource chain and opportunistically seizes value from stages in that process).

I was treating "extracting value" as my ability to get value out of something that is "delivering value". Your definition is probably better as a more complete spectrum, so my question becomes "How does Gemini deliver value relative to the effort I need to exert in order to use it?" Essentially, how does it overcome its own learning curve?

When I view a Gemini document in a Gemini browser, I have inherent assurance that:

- I'm looking at something I just downloaded from the URL I entered or navigated to. If I'm really paranoid I can open it up in a text editor and not have to wade through tag soup and potiential Javascript obfuscation.

- Nothing is hiding from me anywhere, anything that was retrieved from the server is in the current document view.

- No scripting has modified the document.

- No scripting is listening to input device events and sending those to a server.

- If I tell my client to render stuff in a certain way, such as font preference, font size, how to deal with links, the Gemini document won't break.

- If the Gemini document is a big list or index of a bunch of things I want, such as pictures or other media, I can parse those links ridiculously easily with standard UNIX tools and download them when I want with a multitude of download managers. Trying to parse things like Twitter's direct image or video links is hard.

So if you want those things, Gemini is worth a learning curve, which isn't hard (download a client and start browsing).

> Why am I going to use anything if I'm not trying to extract value?

(Author here)

What "value" is there to extract from a public park? Some things are just places meant to be appreciated and enjoyed, and lack a "practical" purpose.

I think you misunderstand my argument, and actually are reinforcing it with this comment.

If I take effort to go and visit a park then I get some kind of value from it. I get to relax in nature, see some pretty trees, have a space to play on a playground, etc. Those uses are evident even if I personally prefer concrete and steel, have pollen allergies or don't have kids.

This project sounds more like a single tree on a tiny island. You can go and sit under it, but you need to swim out to the island. It has no low branches, so you can't do anything except sit under it. It's scraggly, so it doesn't provide any shade, so sitting under it isn't very pleasant in the hot sun. Oh, and no boats are allowed on the lake, so you have to swim the half-mile each way.

It's the opposite of your story, the only possible reason someone could have in visiting the island is to log the tree, or just to say they've been there.

And my argument is more about the practicality. Why am I going to go from writing my blog about how fluffy alpacas are on the HT(TP|ML) web to writing it on Gemini? What do I get for my effort and for the restrictions that are now placed on my writing?

I could appreciate a text file on my local disk about as much as a gemtext page because nobody will see it. Network effects are really real.

Using Gemini is building an enormous mountain, and the only reason to climb it is "because it's there".

As far as I can see, the value seems to be in using code golfing as a form of artistic programming. Probably useless, but not any more so than your average video game, or theater performance, or art museum...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com