alphang

From the docs, it looks like they're emphasizing the document format part, and less so the authoring system (which would make me think of SSG/CI/etc).

It also looks like there are functions, but they're considerably shaved down compared to JavaScript/etc.

I wonder if this will get more adoption in the TW community and by various static site generators.

danah boyd has an interesting essay on this - Selling Out’ Is Meaningless

https://medium.com/message/selling-out-is-meaningless-3450a5...

It seems to me that reaction to this has been tame so far. I believe EFF and phone calls alone aren't going to do anything. You basically need awareness on the level of blackouts.

Are you confident about the current donation model? (I understand/appreciate that it's not a business) I just want to make sure sites can stay up before I start recommending this to friends' kids.

> I have to admit I've been playing NES and SNES with roms on the computer since early 2000s. My parents wouldn't buy me any game consoles or handheld devices so the computer was the only way to go.

Hmm. Isn't this also an argument to support Nintendo now? When I was young I would buy CDs even though I had the mp3s already.

There's some quibble about that here: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/26/11461304/hand-dryers-spread-ger...

Is CloudFlare's desire to extend into the lucrative Chinese market going to cause reduce service for Hong Kong's pro-democracy customers?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/11/20/the-larges...

And it's not even listed on the Ikea Canada site.

I've certainly struggled with the layout of exact stuff in Markdown ... but there's something about this name, the writing on the index.html, and the constant use of the unofficial file icon (which i'm really not a fan) that kind of irks me. Maybe it's the spirit of the naming? Maybe it's because of the effort to _brand_ this? And perhaps the developer-centric tone of the writing versus the writer-centric tone of the original spec? I'm not sure.

I do not agree that having to hide friends so you get a curated News Feed really works. For me, this is a lot of work just to get Facebook back as a fun product again - and FB doesn't really provide great, painless tools for curating your feed. (I'd love a dashboard and power-user shortcuts)

But even if your News Feed looks great, the other side of controlling your FB experience is How You Share. Sure, we can all create lists for our families and faraway friends and acquaintances — but trust and relationships evolve, and pretty soon you're fiddling with "+Family -AuntJenny +HighSchool -Amanda" just for one little post about your relationship status.

You can deal with this by unfriending or self-censoring yourself, but it's really not fun to hold your tongue, and there's a social cost to unfriending.

The author is probably right that "Facebook is fine", if you put enough work into it. But depending on your comfort level, this can mean a lot of work. So the questions are 1) is this really a user error, or a problem with the product? and 2) how can Facebook improve this area? and 3) is it even in Facebook's interest to go down this path?

Funny you should mention 'forcing them to':

"I'll wake up in the morning and go on Facebook just ... because," Casey says. "It's not like I want to or I don't. I just go on it. I'm, like, forced to. I don't know why. I need to. Facebook takes up my whole life." http://kottke.org/13/05/wanting-to-be-liked

I agree that his piece isn't well-researched, and the title is sensationalist, but I share most of his experiences and sentiments. I hope a more quantitative research around this area does emerge though.

I prefer Siracusa's original article. It's wider-spanning, less dismissive, and a perspective that is informed by tech, hardcore gaming, and gamers' Nintendo sentimentality.

Yep, it's one of the things I miss when I'm reading on a multi-touch screen - that extra tool of interaction with the page.

...for now. They can possibly scan your posts/shared urls, like "Galaxy S3 rocks" or whatever, and put that as a sponsored story instead.

Ugh. So even if you don't Like anything, your shared links can become promotional stories. Terrible.

I agree with the gist of your sentiment, but I wouldn't call them "clueless" - maybe unaware, or unconcerned.

"HN, Twitter, Reddit, Google Groups, and Usenet"

Many of these examples tend to be online communities that share the same interest as you. Sure, you can probably configure your own Google Group (i guess?) but who's going to do that?

Facebook is mostly used by people to keep in touch with their offline community - their real-life friends.

Agreed. The social ads, creepy frictionless sharing, the history of privacy issues, the "hidden options" UX, the lack of anonymity, and the lack of support for multiple facets to our identities -- these issues all combined together made me deactivate my account.

I'm still trying it out to see if I can live without it for a year. But I'm hoping to delete it altogether.

Huh. This is an interesting point. It may be a good feature for internet cafes.

Maybe that's the market they're trying to target.

This is awesome. I love how you addressed a problem that seemed "already solved" (ie. there's tonnes of foreign language phrase books in the app store) and designed a better solution for it. I can't wait to try it out on a trip.

btw, does the app also provide an option to read the phrase, so that you can learn it over time?

I agree. Plus the visual and mouse distance between the "Compose" button and the lower right corner Compose pane is far and uncomfortable. Ugh.

It feels like they are trying to Trojan horse Google+ into Gmail. This change is a step backwards in usability.

In an age where people have multiple email addresses, do we really want the email addresses to be hidden? Come on.

That's a good point. I miss the "social utility" days of the service. In that sense it's hugely valuable. (One of the best things about the internet, really.)

It's the push for users to overshare/go frictionless/"Like" the internet etc/viral gaming stuff that makes me uncomfortable.

That's the thing that's been bugging me for the past year or so. I don't know about other people, but it's clear to me that Facebook's default privacy settings — the way it's nicely set up so that you overshare with the whole world — is NOT how most users would use it.

So why keep it around, Facebook?* From my vantage point, it's kinda evil, and it's anti-user. Why can't you stop being Twitter and just be an awesome private network?

* (rhetorical question)

If [1]mentions can be in the metadata, I wonder if mentions within the status itself can look like a footnote reference? That way you don't have to display the full URL in the message.

[1] ^https://example.tent.is

I believe Nilay Patel at The Verge has previously said that this is an expected maneuver for this type of litigation after the initial verdict, including asking for maximum damages and sales ban.

Can a lawyer on HN comment on this?

Great comment. You're arguing that there's an aesthetic that you prefer for smartphone hardware designs rather than the iPhone's.

I think, as Windows Phone and (teenagers who continue to use) Blackberry have proven, people have different uses and visions for how they use their phones. Phone makers could do well to listen carefully and offer solutions, rather than follow Apple's design aesthetic and try to beat them at their own minimalism game.

The part that I like about this review is the refrain — "It's nice". It's both a positive comment about the phone and also a deliberately non-quantitative, colloquial statement, recognizing it's only an incremental improvement. It's joining the chorus but also dismissing it. The argument being that yeah it's just nice, but that's the point. Stylistically, that's a neat little sentence.