Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | reidjs's comments login

I set up HTMX for a toy project recently, seemed fine to me. I think the philosophy of HTMX is the real selling point, sending structured content instead of passing JSON around. There is an opportunity here to either improve HTMX or build a competitor.

For a more batteries included option, see https://unpoly.com/

For the record with https://hotwired.dev there is already a rather successful "competitor".

The difference is self harm vs harming others. The distinction is that advertising may convince people who do not gamble to start gambling.

Gambling is extraordinarily harmful to others, I personally witnessed half a dozen families ruined completely by gambling when the country I lived in allowed slot machines everywhere.

“Legalize everything I can do to myself” is a wildly toxic and uneducated message that completely ignores all the knowledge we have accumulated about the weaknesses and loopholes of human nature.


Anecdata, I know a guy who is a chef. He's gambled it all away, it's just 30k$ (in debt) or so but considering the Swedish tax system it's actually a lot of money. Now kronofogden is after him, he's recently been handed divorce papers and the government takes half his paycheck.

He's got 3 kids (duh) so it immediately affects 4 people while straining even more, for what gain? Megaprofits for $megagamblingcorp?


1. Thats a criteria based on harm, not “free society”.

2. Gambling has massive harms on others. The family of the men who gamble (it’s usually men gambling on sports), including the minor kids who cannot leave the individual and are dependent on them, as well as broader society which now has to pick up the pieces for this individual and the people dependent on him.


That can't be the difference. Assuming parent poster is talking about gambling hurting people (and ignoring that gambling and most other addictions do hurt others, as siblings pointed out), then banning of hurting others you would mean banning bookmakers, not just their advertisements. Parent was specifically banning advertisements but seemed to be saying to leave gambling industry legal.

I could see the way to argue for banning advertising being along the lines of minimizing harm. You acknowledge that gambling does hurt gamblers but also people close to them and society more broadly, but that prohibition may not be very effective so you permit regulated legal gambling (but no ads). I just don't really see how you can make it a freedom argument.


In order to censor speech, to prevent leading the masses astray, the censor must hear/see it.

Why isn't the censor led astray?


I can't tell if this comment is really serious. In case it needs explanation, you don't ban gambling advertising by having a censor watch every ad and then decide which ones to allow. You pass a law that says "no advertising gambling" and then if someone does it, you prosecute them.

Somebody has to look at it to decide it should be banned.

If you ban it it's no longer going to be produced, and all things don't affect all brains equally.

As someone mentioned men are more likely to gamble, I'm sure (but don't quote me on this) that ADHD is over represented as well.

If you broadcast an ad to 10 million people and 1k gets hooked it's still 1k too many lives ruined, while being an annoyance to the other ~10 million


Marxism has resulted in the death of at least 100 million people. Should we ban Marxist content from HN?

By your argument, moderators on HN/Reddit shouldn't remove harmful content, since moderators would still have seen it either way.

If moderators can view it without being harmed, what makes them so special?

I can't tell whether you're trolling or serious...

It's not about moderators being harmed or not. It's a preference of the wider community to not have the harmful content, and the moderators volunteering to help keep it that way.

With most harmful content, the effect of seeing a single instance is not significant. Being exposed to it constantly in places you frequent for other reason (your online communities, or advertisements everwhere), builds up much more of an effect. Now moderators being constantly exposed might also be affected, but they're choosing to do so, and may have coping strategies in place for the more extreme cases.


Online communities can moderate as they see fit. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the law banning certain content.

I've lived long enough to see certain kinds of content banned, and then embraced, and then a different kind of content be banned.

Which era is correct in their choice of banning?


What's the deal with trying so hard to defend the advertising of an objectively harmful industry?

I think a good parallel here is Tobacco advertising. Smoking is harmful in every way, therefore I don't see any reason why advertising it to a broad audience (which will inadvertently also include children) is something we should allow.

What's the net benefit of allowing such advertising? I don't see it. Yo could argue something about rights to free speech or some variation, but societies still have a responsibility to look out for the health of their people, no?


I agree that children are special and should be protected.

As for adults, I am an amateur historian. History is jam packed with censorship of things those in power have deemed "harmful". Examples:

1. William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible to English.

2. Galileo was put under house arrest for his heliocentric views.

3. Mae West was sentenced to 10 days in jail for her play "Sex".

4. Boris Pasternak's novels were banned in the Soviet Union.

5. TV shows in the 1970s were not allowed to show toilets in the bathrooms.

6. Homosexuality could not be portrayed in films until the 1960s.

7. Howard Stern was fined $2.5m for "indecent" broadcasts.

8. Violence on film is far, far more graphic today than was allowed just a few years ago.

9. You can say "fuck" on TV today, along with nudity.

And on and on it goes. Those censors were just as convinced as you are that they were doing the right thing.


Yeah that's true, random unrelated things did happen in the past, but that's not a credible argument against having slap on the wrist fines for advertising gambling.

speech interfaces have gotten amazing in certain contexts, especially now that speech to text is decent. Think times when you can't call the person but need to send them a quick message, eg noisy festival or loud bar while you are moving and aren't able to stop to type.

I know that some people even use voice assistants to do things like set timers, reminders, or initiate calls


Yeah, "some people" -- my partner for one. But efficacy is low, even with all her practice. And there aren't many such people -- look at what's happening to Amazon's alexa unit.

I do mainly use voice to control my watch, which means in practice it's pretty much a read-only device (which is just fine for me).

> Think times when you can't call the person but need to send them a quick message, eg noisy festival or loud bar.

Aren't these precisely cases where speech doesn't work? Too noisy to hear you; too noisy for you to hear the message.


Perhaps it’s the movies fault for not being interactive or engaging enough


Or for being unnecessarily long; 90 minute films seem scarce nowadays even for kids


At least it doesn't run windows


"man, i tried going to bed last night, but it was a BSOD so I had to reboot it, but then it needed 45 minutes of OS updates before I could get in the bed."

seems like a pretty good torture on multiple levels


And they wonder why so many people are sleeping on the streets these days. It’s just better UX.


"before you go to bed you must acknowledge our updated terms of service. Please bear in mind, that our newly added AI engine will process all the thoughts you have during your sleep. Images you see will be stored in the cloud and allowed for further processing by us"


If this paragraph made you giggle, give "Feed" by MT Anderson a read.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_(Anderson_novel)


It wasn't that long ago I tried to use an ATM only to find a WinCE error screen displayed on it. Scary stuff.


I've heard the Windows 3.1 ding (1) on an ATM. This was 2022. I hope it's just because the developers stole the wave file from Windows 3.1...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXF_pmcDghI&t=4s


Just out of curiosity, what are some of the problems with "Clean Code"? I thought most of it made sense as basic guidelines. It's been a while since I read it though


I think https://qntm.org/clean makes a good case that the advice it gives can be taken to very bad extremes -- and that the author of the book does so in some cases when providing "good" examples. That's not to say that the advice is all bad, but that the book as a whole is not a good presentation and inexperienced programmers can enthusiastically learn the wrong lessons from it.

Edit: grabbed the wrong link from my history. Updated to the correct link.


I think the root problem is that a lot of people want books to tell them how to think. I think that's why I hate things like Oprah book clubs, complete with quizzes to make sure you think the right things now.

My best reading experiences involve arguing with the book. And talking about those books and my disagreements with them has been useful, too.

Orthogonally, all humans tend to overuse new knowledge/skills. That's part of how humans learn. We try to find out how far the use stretches and in what ways we can apply our new toys! I would expect any successful book on practices to be seen as overused.


In my opinion, the only significant contribution Clean Code made was the concept of clean code. The problem is that my definition of clean code is almost completely contradictory to what the author of the book thinks constitutes clean code.


Honestly it’s DRY that I oppose more than anything else, I’ve watched too many codebases turn into unreadable spaghetti because engineers thought everything needed to be abstracted. With regard to Clean Code, I think Uncle Bob’s takes on function length are ridiculous (something like “functions should almost never be over 4 lines”). In general, I just feel like he thinks very little of programmers and comes up with rules with an eye towards constraining bad programmers, not empowering good programmers.


Here’s a great example of why it could be ineffective: https://youtu.be/tD5NrevFtbU


Hey I do exactly this! Borg into rsync.i know it’s not exactly your domain, but are you guys working on making this flow easier? I found borg difficult to set up, and tbh I don’t really trust my setup long term. All the borg tutorials I found are on random people’s hobby blogs, it would be nice if you had one specific for rsync.net

Either way, Thank you for providing such an affordable service !


Check out:

https://rsync.net/resources/howto/borg.html

… both of those are very concise (especially the bsd one) and, while they can be used as a general how to, they have rsync.net examples.

Related: I have, personally, recently started to use ‘borg mount’ and it is fantastic.


The volume/pricing entry point for borg is really inviting. I would love see the same things for the zfs part. Sadly 5Tb is a steep entry point for me.


Oh thank you, not sure if that existed when I first set it up


Agree, especially for conveying tone, eg, happy, frustration, danger, etc, especially in dialog.

There is an art to using them to enhance a message instead of obscuring it, though.


At my company, we call this a scream test


You're validating that there is a human on the other end, though, that's dangerous.


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

Search: