97 karma · joined February 17, 2011
A trend that is certainly changing. Vancouver, for instance, has a growing and vibrant VC community, from which this very bill was initiated.
All of that said, I do intend to redesign the site with a larger font size. But, in the meantime, a little CMD (or CRTL) + + will go a long way ;)
And, for the record, the background is white, and #333333 meets the criteria of both the W3C and the WCAG (http://www.snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html?fg...)
Thanks for reading!
Please, accept my sincerest apologies for my misunderstanding and for jumping to conclusions. This article was not written out of malice towards Hacker News, but rather as an attempt to bring clarity to what is and isn't accepted in this community.
I've added a note on the post apologizing for offending anyone, and inviting anyone who would like to discuss the issue further to reach me via email (hello [at] patdryburgh.com)
Thanks for your patience and understanding.
Pat
Perhaps it is non-obvious reading only the title, but the article did go on to clarify what the intent of using the word "porno" was.
My problem with it is that editing the title in this manner sets up an expectation for the reader, and could cause the reader to become upset when they see the actual title has the word "porno" in it. As I said, the article clarifies what I mean, but if someone is sensitive to the use of that type of language, then they may feel they have been duped into looking at content they wouldn't otherwise look at.
As I pointed out in the article, this doesn't appear to be a common experience. I couldn't find anyone else online complaining about Hacker News censoring their content. But, I wanted to make clear what my intentions were, and hopefully open up a discussion that could possibly lead to needed clarity on exactly what the rules of this community are.
Tried replying to you through email, but the email bounced back. Used the email on your Hacker News profile.
Cheers, Pat
I'm very, very sympathetic to this issue, and agree that it hurts when any site goes down. However, Simple Desks was mostly a curated gallery of what already exists on the internet. A quick Google search for "Simple Desks" will turn up basically the same thing.
The other question to ask is whether permanence is a value worth holding for all things. Is it really worth holding onto all of that email? (This is a personal question, for everyone to answer, not for one person to dictate over others.)
My friend wrote a great piece on this recently (http://patrickrhone.com/2011/12/20/permanently-impermanent). It reflects on the freedom of not worrying about losing everything. He doesn't advocate being complacent, but simply acknowledging that no system is 100% sure to maintain our bits.
To me, it's actually more of a moral issue: is keeping a site like Simple Desks online good, bad, or neutral to the world. I'm sure it's different for different people, but I just couldn't shake the feeling that in the end it was detrimental to people's time.
We have better things to do with our time, and much more beautiful works of art to get enjoyment from.