tuxracer

Preact https://preactjs.com/ is a good purely MIT licensed drop in replacement for React if licensing is an issue

> In school my teachers who would advise me on getting jobs would say “email them until they reply, everyone is super busy.” Well here’s the deal, so am I.

Good lord we're spoiled. It would be helpful if people would chat with friends in other industries about their experiences job hunting before writing bratty diatribes like this. There are some legit gripes in here but it's covered in such a thick coat of entitlement it's hard to stomach.

> And that company can afford to do it right. They're rich.

In that case not sure what their excuse is but my point still holds true: Their sites are almost universally godawful and they're demonstrably not able to be trusted with the full feature set of the web. AMP provides some sanity including things like hard limits on the size of CSS.

HN itself? Nope. Many publisher sites do benefit however. Especially local news sites that likely can't attract the best tech talent and/or contract out pages to be shoveled out by contractors.

Re: Abuse of AMP. AMP places sane restrictions on pages https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/spec#html-tags including hard limits on CSS size, etc... Google enforces these restrictions for pages served through their servers.

This is a much much needed effort to take the publishers toys away given they've proven they cannot be trusted with the full feature set of the web without adult supervision.

Being forced to instead load some (almost universally awful) publisher site w/ 72 MB of JavaScript & CSS, absurdly intrusive ads popping up as you try to read, etc.... is an improved experience?

The macOS app store didn't gain much traction but you're underestimating just how much of a cease pool the Windows app store is. Microsoft must have the resources to moderate that better. But based on my last test search of "Firefox" coming up with dozens of fake Firefox apps or "apps" that are "Firefox Guides" basically PDFs wrapped as an "app" etc... My only guess is Microsoft knows there's a truly abysmal number of legit apps so they just choose not to moderate it

It can be an almost drop in replacement for many projects. You may have to lean on the officially offered https://github.com/developit/preact-compat depending on the project. If you add preact-compact you do lose some of the size advantage over react but that's not really an issue if licensing is your main concern.

Seems the preact author might want to consider marketing preact as not only the lighter weight alternative, but also the MIT licensed alternative to react (Although if more projects included that surprisingly controversial patent clause it would mark the end of software patents. Isn't that a good thing?)

Just as a thought experiment if every piece of software had a similar clause in their license it would mark the end of software patents. Isn't this what we actually want more of? Isn't _that_ actually the moral high ground?

Brave's features are not an extension. It's is a fork of Chromium. Any mechanism they include in their build has none of the limitations extensions have and they're not extensions at all.

"If you end goal is to statically type your whole application then flow has little or no advantages" does not somehow translate to: If your end goal is to /not/ statically type your whole application then typescript has a disadvantage. Both TypeScript and Flow are gradually typed and annotations are completely optional at every step of the way. Neither TypeScript nor Flow differ whatsoever in this regard.

Other than name/logo what's the difference? Brave allows you to block all scripts by default and only whitelist specific sites.

NoScript is also integrated into https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.brave.brow... This uses Chrome so there's likely higher compatibility with mobile sites

Surely there's nuance but the false equivalence here is pretty stunning. Reminds me of a conversation I had with a co-worker who is from China when he said something along the lines of, "There's censorship in America too! There's a Wikipedia article I can show you that lists all the instances!" ...uh yeah that's the point, we can both access Wikipedia directly here and nobody risks arrest or fines for having this very conversation.

Contrary to the party line China is truly an aberration when it comes to censorship for a modern, wealthy, industrialized country. Pointing out that China belongs to a tiny group of outliers compared to the entire rest of planet Earth when it comes to censorship does not equate to somehow claiming the US has no faults.

Really disappointing there doesn't appear to be a USB-C option

"No, correlation does not imply causation, but it sure as hell provides a hint."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...

"anti"fa uses violence in an attempt to terrorize people into not speaking about things they disagree with. They're effectively a violent terrorist organization. It's just a great reminder that extremism can form regardless of political or religious labels.

It would be interesting to see benchmarks on load time. This seems to be absent in many of these types of posts so it's not a clear what impact these efforts have on end users.

That case created a misconception that refuses to die... There's nothing inherently illegal about having a default app or product. There's also nothing inherently illegal about having a popular app or product.

The reason Microsoft got in trouble is because it was not only found that they had a monopoly in a particular market, but that they obtained some of that market share illegally through shady contracts effectively forbidding OEMs from offering alternative OSes, etc... They were then found to have used that illegally obtained monopoly to take over a completely different market in part by bundling IE with Windows and punishing OEMs who sought to including alternate browsers and completely disallowing the removal of IE.

> I always get all stoked about creating an iOS app until I remember that half my users are on android. Then I get bummed.

But seriously it is a bummer Safari doesn't support service workers yet. It's possible higher adoption would put more pressure on Apple to add support. In the meantime it can be a great enhancement where it is supported.

You can still cache the response you just don't get to see what the response was. For those types of resources it's best to only fallback to using them if the user is offline.

> nobody if forced (except for perhaps android users) to use Chrome

Unlike iOS you can install different browsers on Android directly from the Play Store. These can actually be different browsers with their own rendering engines not just alternative UIs on top of Chrome. Firefox on Android for example uses the actual Firefox rendering engine, not Chrome.

Great design! This would make a really awesome PWA vs electron only. Let me know if you'd like any help with that

Right you have a way to manually whitelist sites on your own as well. But it wouldn't surprise me if that whitelist came preloaded with a number of legit video sites (netflix, youtube, etc...)

They still have a "Play" button, no? It's possible there may be some whitelist as well.

Because you lose control over your product for those percentage of users. What happens when you want to run an A/B test and a huge chunk or your users is on a platform you can no longer create tests for? What if the A/B test is wildly successful now you can't even ship those changes to a chunk of your users?

And I might add GOOD! This type of creative licensing seems like an end-around a Congress and US Patent administration that seems woefully unwilling to make desperately needed reforms when it comes to software patents.

If Congress is unable or unwilling to act then why not take it upon ourselves to include these types of clauses in even more licenses?

> People wouldn't care except that your "personal" decision affects them.

Yes it's perfectly logical under a single payer, universal healthcare system. So the reaction by some is: this is exactly why we should not have universal healthcare.

> Everyone pays for insurance. So if you're making premiums more expensive then that affects me too.

It muddies the water quite a bit by having a marketplace of different private insurance companies. If you see me doing something risky you have no clue whether or not I'm even covered under the same insurance company as you. So maybe I am, maybe I'm not affecting your premiums. Single payer universal healthcare removes all doubt.

sounds like a great way to get detained for 4 hours

Both the military and the private health insurance industry are Keynesian jobs programs first, their stated purposes second.