I actually like the font even though my eyes hate it. Its a short read so no biggie. Maybe remove the transparency for a sharper look and make the spacing of the 3 fonts slightly closer to each other.
I kind of lump in "internet" (late 90s) with "internet in everyone's pockets at all times". But there was a fairly large gap there. Especially when you consider the limits of 3 and even 4g.
I’ve been considering subscribing to some high quality signal / low to no ad type written publications. Asterisk, IEEE spectrum, NOEMA. Make getting mail fun again.
If the site used a black font over black background it would be more readable as I could at least select the text and read it.
To add insult to injury, the site's name flashes. I'd say that the ONE interesting thing about this link is exactly how exotically bad the presentation is!
what makes them also the former is that (and surely the reason for the rule) is that because these grievances are so commonly expressed when links are shared they create a near constant 'noise' in the signal to noise of each discussion, with signal being the idea or message intended to be shared by the poster rather than the medium it arrived in
a better way to discuss the tangent or the medium would be by submitting its own HN post. that way theres a better S/N ratio for everything
example: scientific breakthrough is shared on fbook
signal: any discussion about that breakthrough or its Nth order effects on anything
noise: any discussion about the fbook website, walled gardens, zark muckerburg, anything that would be on any link for that site regardless of the message inside the medium
those discussions arent illegitimate, they are better served by targeted discussion on their posts like..
some websites are stylized the point of illegibility
fbook website dark patterns
popups make alt F4
..rather than increasing noise across the whole of HN. this rule is closely related to another site rule: "use the best possible interpretation of the parent comment" because it too is a rule that is in place as an attempt to steer toward "curious discussion" (high S/N ratio)
( i will agree in this case the illegibility warrants a comment chain, holy smokes! )
That's the addiction, not the information.
I dont think you would need someone to publish that your hair was on fire on the web before you would believe it.
The wasteful part is that repeating the behavior (addiction or not) can become self-repeating even in the absence of the fix. Also one has to realize that at least in the case of news there is very little every day and most of what is distributed is rehash, or ancillary, or bloated and repeated to sell ads. You can go without watching or consuming news on the internet and not miss much for a pretty long time.
As far as tech goes, it moves very slow you can take a couple years off a software eng job and come back and not much has changed with very few exceptions. (Yes LLMs were one)
When you are done staring at your phone/computer at the end of the day reflect on whether or not you got anything really worthwhile out of it and put it in perspective. The signal vs noise ratio is not in your favor and getting less so every day.
I personally stare at my phone alot for the same reason as many people do. Im bored. But I dont do it at the expense of anything else Id rather do.
There is so much more to learn than any one person could even skim in their lifetime, even if you ignore absolutely all news. And heck yeah, it’s addictive.
This is me on eBay :)
> I'm not addicted to the internet or my smartphone. I'm addicted to information
I think there's something maybe special going on there.
Probably unintentional ... but I swear reading 'word at a time' the words are in a way clearer, like your mind is able to abstract them out of the background.
Wild!
And yes, information is 'the thing' but it depends on how it's presented obviously.
When I see things like this, it sometimes occurs to me that the people who create "addiction" are the ones in power. Come to think of it, it makes me wonder why there was never any such thing as newspaper addiction.
It isn't personalized, so many sections aren't of much interest.
That's always the case, really. There are people whose daily lives fall apart because they read too many books, but that usually isn't categorized as a form of addiction. So sometimes I wonder how addiction is actually defined.
and: https://archive.org/details/americannervousn00bearuoft/page/... - one note on this, Beard blamed nervous exhaustion on steam power, the periodical press, the telegraph, the sciences, and uh... the mental activity of women... This excerpt for a tl;dr: https://english.web.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/english/doc...
For how addiction is defined, google ICD-11, it's: Impaired control over the behavior, the behavior taking increasing priority over other interests and daily activities, and continuation or escalation despite negative consequences, plus distress or functional impairment.. (I'm an alcoholic, 5 years sober)
I noticed this about myself about 25 years ago... before the internet really took off on the dopamine rollercoatser it is now.
Edit: While fuzzy or blurry text itself is highly unlikely to trigger an epileptic seizure it is a major cause of optical strain, headaches, and reading barriers across various accessibility needs. Given the amount of screen time we all incur in our daily lives, I do not see why this should be a "thing".
Maybe try to avoid making a statement using a font which literally hurts my eyes, and possibly the eyes of many others. That's messed up.
Also information addiction should be a human "feature" I suppose, shouldn't it?
Knowledge for the sake of knowledge and so forth.
The font is actually cool but it belongs in games like Alien Isolation (and possibly others) it's just not good for blogging methinks.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(reader mode works perfectly well on this site afaict)
It looks gorgeous as an art piece, but it's impossible to read.
Form over function to the extreme.
main::before {
background:
linear-gradient(rgba(18, 16, 16, 0) 50%, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.25) 50%),
linear-gradient( 90deg, rgba(255, 0, 0, 0.06), rgba(0, 255, 0, 0.02), rgba(0, 0, 255, 0.06) );
}
:root {
--text-shadow: 2px 0px red, -2px 0px var(--glitch-color-2);
}
<span>explorator.dev</span>
<span>єӿƿłøгⱥʈøг.ᑻ</span>
Controversy shouldn't give me cataracts either.