dmitriz

Any reference proving this statement?

That was not my impression when dealing with them as author. Any justification for that?

Indeed, their "typesetting" is mostly done by people with no subject expertise who is more likely to introduce a mistake than correct something that matters.

Indeed, these and other problems exist with author-posted versions, also putting researchers at disadvantage by being less read and cited: https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/17

The useful part of the service does not a lot as many examples of community run journals shows, such as http://www.mathoa.org/journal-of-algebraic-combinatorics-fli...

The reason the publishers charge their exorbitant rates is because they have acquired the journals leaving no freedom to switch to alternative providers offering better service at lower cost. Nor do they allow saving costs by not using services that are not needed.

I read from the linked comments:

> In addition to basic copy-editing, she prevents crackpot articles such as "Darwin's Theory of Evolution is proven wrong by Trump" from reaching the journal editors and wasting their time. (She may inadvertently forward some bad articles but she has enough education to reject many of them outright to minimize the effort by the journal's scientists.)

Do I read it right that an Elsevier manager with no degree in the subject rejects research papers without consulting the editors? To me as scientist this is a big red flag and concern about journal's quality. While the example given here looks obvious (and probably contrived), most real examples are less so. And while recognizing those takes little time and effort to a trained eye, this task certainly should not be left to a subject non-specialist. It will not save much time and create more concerns than help.

> The alternative business model that the world is moving to is Open Access. The difference being that instead of paying to access the journal or paper, the researcher or institution that wishes to publish pays up front to have the paper published.

Open Access is not a business model. It is about the Access, as the name says. The author pays is a business model, not the best one, and is the one with many problems.

See the Fair Open Access Principles https://www.fairopenaccess.org/ and the Publishing Reform Discussion Forum https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues

> Open Access has its own problems, such as predatory journals, where researchers who don't know better or who are desperate to publish are more or less lied to as to the reach and validity of a journal.

This is not specific to Open Access, there are low quality subscription journals as well. No serious scientist would send articles to unknown journals without checking their credentials, whether the journals are open access or not.

Related discussion on the Publishing Reform Forum: https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/38

Please help us by expressing your opinion and public support on the forum. There is still a lot of work needed to convince the journals' editors.

Ironically, this articles confirms that investing into the no-JS functionality is becoming less and less important, with those major sites already forcing the user into JS. Why then would you invest your time and money to cater to the "eccentric" 1%?

Here is the best written piece I know about the FP benefits (Hint: it is not only vs imperative):

https://drboolean.gitbooks.io/mostly-adequate-guide/content/...

Care to give an example to illustrate what JavaScript is lacking?

See also the Reddit discussion:

https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/5hfq6n/100_minu...,

Examples from the course:

https://github.com/dmitriz/functional-examples,

and the wonderful e-book "Professor Frisby's Mostly Adequate Guide to Functional Programming" by the same author:

https://drboolean.gitbooks.io/mostly-adequate-guide/content/

Is user email confirmation finally supported by Firebase? Last time I checked it wasn't.

I presume you can still use it with any mobile App wrapped as native e.g. via React Native or Ionic.

In my browser it looks more like '1.25'. And the worst part -- I can't see it in the dev tools! It shows me 'normal' as computed value and I still don't know what it is!

Apparently HN is using table layout and `line-height: normal` is set by UA on any table. This is the first time I can't overwrite it by setting it on `body`.

This just breaks anything I know and only leads to frustration.

Yes, it is set to `normal`. It is reasonably readable but not excessively reasonably ;)

I don't think browser vendors are the right people to blame though. Their job is to give the designer enough control and they mostly succeed or sometimes don't (https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2012/12/css-baseline-the-go...)

But you certainly cannot expect them to come up with optimal default working for every single site out there.

So setting proper line-height has to remain the site's responsibility. And something as simple as unitless 1.4-1.6 would improve readability with any "regular" font.

Given that HN isn't exactly famous for using fancy fonts, which isn't a bad thing at all. ;)

They are thinking "most people are too lazy to read, so we need to hold their attention with more images". Unfortunately, they are not thinking to have a button "I want to read, make your images get lost", which would cater for smaller but still considerable part of population.

This site does loads fast but it does not have much content either. Plus, the list of articles in the side bar seems to be exactly the same as in the content right next to it, so the useful content is even less ;)

Plus the fact that it only seems exactly the same is wasting reader's time to check it.

On the positive side, the site authors did actually make the most important design decision -- to increase space between lines. On the less positive side, they did not do it for the title, which might be due to only checking how it look on the main page but not here: http://www.digitalmars.com/articles/b92.html

Having line-height: 1.6 on HN would go a long way in terms of readability.

Impressive personality. But horrendous choice of colors for the web page. To the point of pain for the eyes just to look at it. Not to mention reading.

Not to mention their massive navbar obscuring the view, and the inability to put text into their images ;)

http://cl.ly/2x3m091s3U0D

Despite of their "minimalistic design", Bloomberg still consumes 5+ MB on my mobile connection only to load, with 1+ MB non-cached resources (meaning they will keep consuming bandwidth on every reload).

"ugly or difficult" is certainly subjective matter, but at line-height normal (no extra space between the lines), Hacker News isn't exactly optimised for reading.

The underlined non-links go throughout the article.

Mocking someone's bad design is hardly a valid reason for hindering own readers, if the purpose of the article is actually being read. As opposed to being visually admired without reading ;)

I wonder what is Bloomberg's excuse for breaking user affordance by underlining non-links.

Any transcript of it?

One thing is always clear -- a big Co's interest is not always your interest.

Which is why I love what Sindre is doing -- letting us to customise our experience with products that ignore it by themselves. I wish there were more projects doing that. Demand is definitely there.

Does it also apply to the multiple team accounts with separate logins, or is it regarded a tolerable inconvenience amidst other amazing qualities?

Gitter is becoming standard in Developer community with Slack practically dying. No surprise given Slack's inferior UX. Fragmenting my teams and asking separate passwords for each? What a stupid idea!

Riot examples use reference to parent, which seems fragile to me, as your parent may easily change.