Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | load's commentslogin

I think everyone saw this one coming...

...although the article is a tad misleading. if a user reports a message, the message (and a bit of chat history) is sent to facebook mods, as it probably should be.


Probably not - if something gets as popular as these it isn't likely they're going to be forgotten anytime soon, least of all the Hunger Games.

Many of them will probably grow into 'classics' in the decades following, and it's a bit rare to see them just fade into obscurity, but it happens.


Hunger Games is written for a teen audience, and like most books targeted to that demographic, will simply go out of fashion and disappear.

Yes, I read it :-)


ah yes, like all the other flash-in-the-pan teen novels:

to kill a mockingbird, the hobbit, the catcher in the rye, the lord of the rings, fahrenheit 451, anne of green gables, the lord of the flies, flowers for algernon, dune, the call of the wild, treasure island, and the narnia series.

Yes, I know many books in that category fade away, but only time will tell if hunger games is one of the ones that fade, or one of the ones that lasts


Many of those are now recognized to have a real artful quality and literary value, which is hardly present in something like the hunger games


Well, I haven't read The Hunger Games, but my readings of criticism of it leads me to think it probably has some sort of real artful quality and literary value - what is your argument that it doesn't?


Don't take my word for it - read it yourself. It's trashy YA kitsch. Contrast with catcher in the rye or LotR afterwards


It also has a completely predictable plot and many deux ex machinas to get our heroine out of a hopeless jam. Its plot is similar to Stephen King's "The Long Walk" which is a far better (and grimmer) book.


I don't think all of those books were necessarily written for the teen / young adult market although I guess they were marketed at it at one time or another.


I wrote "most", not "all". I didn't see anything special or deep in THG.


Isn't part of the point of the article that some books were best sellers and yet they are forgotten?


It seems like Koch wants to keep pushing consensus to privatize the postal service by weakening funding for it, which is, either intentionally or unintentionally, economically harming it. I'm on the fence over whether 'kill' is the right word for this though.


This is awesome. I ended up just removing random bits to make it look wrong, but somehow it always ended up looking pretty stunning. I think the shadows also add a lot to the scene.

I also made a pretty good-looking two layered structure with it: (pic https://ibb.co/vVbtG52)


The inversion principle is a great mental model in my opinion. The best way I can sum it up in the most basic way is instead of thinking "What can I do to [achieve goal]?", think "What is preventing me from [achieving goal]?".

If some of you like this, I suggest delving into the 'mental model' rabbit hole. There's some pretty inspiring stuff on it.


Is the link in the blog post a good place to start? (https://fs.blog/mental-models/#what_are_mental_models) or do you have an alternative suggestion?


From what I've discovered it does seem to be a rather simple and easy-to-use platform, if a bit too basic.

I myself wouldn't use it, but it seems like a much-welcome platform for those without too much experience on the technical side.

Based on the trailer footage it seems like there's not really any options for customisation either, which is a big con for me (although this prejudice is based on the trailer footage and might not be true in the platform itself).

The comments system was well-implemented, though. Credit where it's due.


Thank you for the feedback!

Yes we do allow styling and layout customization on the site. it's just hard to cover everything in the demo.

Feel free to email me at kuldeep@edition.so if you are looking for early access.


If it doesn't run on MediaWiki, I'm not into it.


DokuWiki used to be very much better for my use cases: easier to hack on/make plugins for and more built in functionality and less dependencies on top if that since it store the pages as flat files instead of using a DB.


Hmm. I'll go check it out.

The main thing I'm worried about with other wiki software (including Wiki.js) is that if it's compatible with gadgets, userscripts and all of the other neat tools already available.

It doesn't have to be MediaWiki, or even a distant relative of it. It just has to work with them.


Why?


I mean, I appreciate the effort put into building this, but external tools like AWB, and userscripts/gadgets (plus a host of other goodies) can't be accessed over globally if it's on a completely different software. Almost every wiki on the net uses MediaWiki for good reason.

I will be happy if this Wiki.js platform does have compatibility with these features, though.


I guess the same reasoning would apply to WordPress, PHP and MySQL then (user scripts, penetration etc). Would that be your first choice when setting up a new web page?


> Almost every wiki on the net uses MediaWiki for good reason.

It is unclear to ne if you refer to statistics or gut feeling here. Would you mind clarifying?


By 'MediaWiki' I'm referring to the wikis and wiki farms that use MediaWiki or a variant of it. This includes:

- Wikimedia

- FANDOM

- Gamepedia

- Miraheze

FANDOM is the most massive wiki farm with over 360,000+ (as of 2016) wikis[1], which I'd give at lowest an estimate of 60% of the total number of wikis on the net, and is 88th on the Alexa rankings.[2] FANDOM is a wiki powerhouse, and you bet it uses MediaWiki.

Excluding WikiHow, I have never seen a wiki not use MediaWiki. As one of the guys that hops across many different wikis and wiki farms doing automated work, I cannot stress this enough.

[1] Brandon Rhea, FANDOM VP of Growth https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Choosing_Fandom?diff=next&... (dated June 14, 2016)

[2] Alexa.com https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/fandom.com#section_traffic (dated ~21 July 2020)


> Excluding WikiHow

WikiHow is using mediawiki (or at least a fork of it) https://src.wikihow.com/

But there certainly exist other wikis and wiki-like projects that dont. MDN and OWASP wiki are prominent examples that moved away from mediawiki. I think mediawiki has most of the mass-collabotation market, but there is much more competition in the open-source project documentation niche (which people often use wikis for) and corporate knowledge base market.

P.s. for the interested, mediawiki has statistics at https://pingback.wmflabs.org/#unique-wiki-count (opt-in) and https://wikiapiary.com/wiki/Main_Page (based on web crawling)


Gamepedia was bought by Fandom too, FYI.


They're apparently working hard to upgrade and merge their diverging MediaWiki codebases; some details on this very interesting blogpost: https://community.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:MisterWoodhouse/...


Neat, I actually sold a wiki to Curse pre-Gamepedia and worked there for a short while. Not very happy to see a single company gobble up so much of the online gaming community.


Stats, clearly.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: