0 users browsing Discussion. | 31 bots
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-08, 15:07
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #249 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by tomman Yes, for extremely high values of "popular". A semi-obscure website that still gets a few dozen thousand views a month would net you a few dozen dollars a month, which might be the difference between making a slight profit and shelling out $100/mo for hosting, assuming it's some resource-intensive stuff. If you run one of said "controversial sites" (politics, Nazi/KKK/Taliban shit, Poetteringware™, etc.), no sane advertiser will want to touch it, but I'm pretty much sure their target will find a way to support their site. Just not involving buttcoins or PayPal buttons you can't use anyway, since historically there have been other ways to do so. Lots of politics websites can and do run ads though, as long as they're reasonably centrist. How would they earn money without ads/donations/crypto mining? Paywalls? The only thing I can think of is captchas or renting it out for DoS attacks, but those are strongly unethical and poorly paid. "People not wanting to pay for things" are a completely different problem, and advertising/cryptojunk won't solve that - it's a SOCIAL problem product of the inherent selfishness built into the human being. "Adware" is just a consequence of that fact - at a first look ads aren't evil (if you aren't interested, just scroll down), but the "Big Data" era perverted the concept down to the bone, and advertising is now considered an evil greater than wars and communism. Advertising DOES solve it plenty fine for most use cases, and so does crypto mining, arguably. Tracking, as regrettable as it is, is needed to get it profitable. Otherwise you'd just be shooting in the dark. Even if it's horribly inefficient, it is orders of magnitude more precise than just sending them out at random. And for this reason, niche websites get a higher CPM.
To be blunt, your impressions aren't worth very much. If we assume that CPM scales linearly with GDP/capita, it would mean the average Venezuelan click is worth about 4% of an American one. So cutting off the lower end isn't very bad for business. It's regrettable, yes, but I wouldn't say they're shooting themselves in the foot. CRYPTOJUNK IS NOT REAL MONEY. I don't think I could exchange Enron shares or tulips for money anymore. But at the time I could, and I don't see what'd be wrong getting paid in them. It's kind of awkward to deal with, sure, but (inconvenient) money is still money. In particular, I don't get your ire against crypto. People are buying bitcoins for VES, so wouldn't it be a good way to make money? Even if you remain steadfast in the conviction that it's outright fraud, it should be extremely profitable. It would be trivial to make a crypto mining provider that paid out each month in your bank account, and that's all that matters. If someone else is willing to buy it, it's not immoral to sell it, provided it's not a negative externality unto itself. Many websites can't take wire transfers/credit cards, so their only option is crypto (for both receiving and paying expenses). What about them? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| tomman |
Posted on 19-05-08, 15:48 (revision 3)
|
|
Dinosaur
 Post: #301 of 1316 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 3 hours Last view: 3 hours |
Repeat after me: CRYPTOJUNK IS NOT REAL MONEY. In particular, I don't get your ire against crypto. People are buying bitcoins for VES, so wouldn't it be a good way to make money? Even if you remain steadfast in the conviction that it's outright fraud, it should be extremely profitable. Yeah right, next you're going to tell me that becoming a bank robber should be extremely profitable too, nevermind the fact it's also extremely illegal (i.e. a crime). Sorry but no. Those Venezuelans "buying" into the cryptocraze are nothing but a tiny TINY minority that are well aware they're walking on quicksands (but anyone over here is so desperate to eat they're willing to do whatever weird/shady acts they can, as long as they can eat, damned be the consequences later). I can't believe I have to say this again, but I've met people that actually have dealt with cryptojunk. Close friends of mine, even! They all left the business after making a tiny profit (or even nothing at all9 because it's too volatile (win $100 in a day, then lose $400 in one hour - what the hell is this, Vegas?!) and too shady (I guess you don't read the news about those LOLcryptoexchanges going bust or taking the money and run away) to become a full-time job. And then you have the commies that are trying to use cryptojunk as the vehicle to commit outright fraud legally. Hey, I heard the local crypto authority (yes, what a fine waste of our national budget: backing smelly buttcoins that not even scammers want) is hiring, why not apply there?! But hey, saying "poor starving Venezuelans are buying buttcoins like crazy" sure works for the headlines of whatever they want to pass as "journalism" nowadays, right? Nevermind the fact we don't even have working Internet connections with enough stability to do a good ol' fashioned ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER, much less for waiting to the blockchain to do the same. Cryptocurrencies are a fad. Cryptocurrencies are a scam. Cryptocurrencies are an easy way to get fools parted from their money. Cryptocurrencies are far worse than Wall Street sharks. And cryptocurrencies really hit the shitter when either Big Money and/or the gub'mints try to take a slice of the pie. Repeat after me: CRYPTOJUNK IS NOT REAL MONEY. I'll stick to ol' smelly USD, shiny new EUR, or failing that, good ol' worthless VES, thanks. If you run a website, you can find other ways to get your shit funded. Internet has always found a way, from postcards to Kickstarters, all of them on the legit side. Don't waste your time, my position is already set in stone. Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-08, 16:00
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #250 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by tomman Don't make no difference to me.
Yes, that's true. I'm not going to criticize you for not engaging in unethical actions, but I would think that moral standards fly out the window if one is starving. And arguably cryptocurrency speculation is more moral than outright theft at gunpoint; at least the speculators know what they're getting into. I'd reckon most people who buy/sell cryptocurrencies for a living don't work their underlying exposure to the commodity into it - they don't own any more or less bitcoins just because they sold or bought some as part of a business transaction, since that'll just get reflected in the transactions they make to their exchange to have enough of each on hand. Sorry but no. Those Venezuelans "buying" into the cryptocraze are nothing but a tiny TINY minority that are well aware they're walking on quicksands (but anyone over here is so desperate to eat they're willing to do whatever weird/shady acts they can, as long as they can eat, damned be the consequences later). I can't believe I have to say this again, but I've met people that actually have dealt with cryptojunk. Close friends of mine, even! They all left the business after making a tiny profit because it's too volatile and too shady to become a full-time job. And then you have the commies that are trying to use cryptojunk as the vehicle to commit outright fraud legally. Hey, I heard the local crypto authority (yes, what a fine waste of our national budget: backing smelly buttcoins that not even scammers want) is hiring, why not apply there?! Yes, and this is for speculation. But you could get a job, paid in bitcoin, and then immediately cash out the money as soon as it hits your wallet. Even if it's unstable, it's probably not going to crash within the span of an hour. I'm not suggesting you invest in Bitcoin, which would arguably be a bad idea. But for transferring money, it seems like it would be perfect. I see other people from Venezuela talking about Bitcoin (again, for the transfer of value, not store of it), and they seem to be able to sell it fine. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| Kawaoneechan |
Posted on 19-05-08, 18:56
|
|
The Brickshitter™
 Post: #217 of 599 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 196 days Last view: 5 min. |
You two aren't gonna convince each other about buttcoin. I suggest you drop it and move on with the rest of the conversation. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is Mozilla being Mozilla. |
| tomman |
Posted on 19-05-08, 19:28
|
|
Dinosaur
Post: #304 of 1316 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 3 hours Last view: 3 hours |
All right, here is n-gate's take on the whole situation:All extensions disabled due to expiration of intermediate signing cert I love how the nerdsphere likes to "solve" browser problems: - Is Mozilla flipping the finger at you? Switch to Chrome! - Is Google too evil for your pure soul? Switch to Firefox! And now, with IE dead (well, almost!), Edge/Opera being reskinned Chrome, and with all other minor players mostly being also Webkit derivatives... damn. Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-08, 20:36
|
|
Custom title here
 Post: #438 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 14 hours |
Posted by tommanI use my hotmale account with email clients without paying. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-08, 20:37
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #253 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by Kawa You are mistaken, I believe it was about ads and how a website could fund itself without one of * tracking ads * cryptocurrency mining * incredibly unethical and probably illegal means * extremely large volumes of traffic and non-tracking ads * an extremely specific and lucrative niche (e.g. zerohedge) But yeah, back to the topic. As we all know, here at the BBoard we take our thread topics incredibly seriously. Posted by tomman Doesn't everyone? (see: American politics, British politics, smartphones, cell service providers, ISPs, CPU manufacturers, semiconductor fabrication in general, social media, TLDs) I'm sure you could add many more examples. There's no other solution. As much as you could want to develop another browser, it would just be prohibitively expensive. We've been through this, we're talking thousands of pages of specifications, plus whatever non-standard hacks the major browser makers implement (e.g. to "parse" horribly broken "HTML"), plus whatever websites do to break browsers they don't like. And all this to absolutely no end, when you could just grab someone else's engine and be done with it. There's a grand total of one dude in Russia doing it, plus the Servo people, plus various Chromium/Firefox forks. In other words, There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| tomman |
Posted on 19-05-09, 01:01 (revision 1)
|
|
Dinosaur
Post: #305 of 1316 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 3 hours Last view: 3 hours |
Posted by CaptainJistuce You... can do that? ...apparently yes! Well, time to revive my Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| Nicholas Steel |
Posted on 19-05-09, 02:37
|
|
Post: #188 of 426
Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 499 days Last view: 14 days |
How... did you of all people not know Hotmail was still free? AMD Ryzen 3700X | MSI Gamer Geforce 1070Ti 8GB | 16GB 3600MHz DDR4 RAM | ASUS Crosshair VIII Hero (WiFi) Motherboard | Windows 10 x64 |
| tomman |
Posted on 19-05-09, 02:43
|
|
Dinosaur
Post: #307 of 1316 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 3 hours Last view: 3 hours |
Posted by Nicholas Steel I was there when GMail happened. Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-09, 03:55
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #439 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 63 days Last view: 14 hours |
Posted by Nicholas SteelThey used to charge for POP and IMAP access, I believe. Only webmail was free. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-09, 16:29 (revision 1)
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #256 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Interesting article about banner ads' effect on traffic. Spoiler: they make quite a difference. Also, there's this part about Firefox: Almost simultaneously with Pandora, Mozilla (Miroglio et al 2018) conducted a longitudinal (but non-randomized, using propensity scoring+regression) study of browser users which found that after installing adblock, the subset of adblock users experienced “increases in both active time spent in the browser (+28% over [matched] controls) and the number of pages viewed (+15% over control)”. One could guess what it would do to their market share if AdBlock were to become standard. But no, they have to protect Their Benefactors. Got to get that $$$ for the side projects. And can't do anything morally dubious, even it it ultimately means the death of the web. And so it goes. Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened, I suppose. But it's shocking that they have the actual, hard numbers and still are too cowardly to do anything. I suppose you could make the argument that they had it coming, which would definitely be true, but it's still regrettable for everyone else. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| tomman |
Posted on 19-05-18, 16:57
|
|
Dinosaur
Post: #327 of 1316 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 3 hours Last view: 3 hours |
From the Absurdly Bad Ideas department at Mozilla, here comes this: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-binary-ast https://blog.cloudflare.com/binary-ast/ https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=BinaryAST-Proposal https://developers.slashdot.org/story/19/05/17/1641202/mozilla-cloudflare-facebook-and-others-propose-binaryast-for-faster-javascript-load-times BinaryAST is the answer from the JavaScript Frat Boys to address a problem they've caused: slow load times of their massive piles of shitty bloated tracking/framework scripts. Because that's totally what we need: less time from 0 to $COMPLETE_CPU_ASSRAPE. Or, another innovative way to screw up with folks using ad/script blockers because total monetization is a core feature of the modern Web that must be protected at all costs! Who's on board? - Mozilla (they don't care about their users) - Facebook (the kings of tracking and bloated messaging apps) - Bloomberg (you know, the business newspaper you stopped reading years ago when they started abusing of video autoplay and Infiniscroll™) - Cloudflare (those are the only ones that have a "mostly legit" reason on this, as bandwidth costs them money) Interesting to not see Google involved on this, but then they would prefer to download an app for that™ on your Android smartdevices, or maybe some Chrome-specific feature. Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-18, 18:54
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #298 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Bloomberg is a nice website with clean design that has reasonable and neutral financial analysis, it's like a slightly worse Financial Times without paywall. I browse it with JS disabled though.The performance of applications on the web platform is becoming increasingly bottlenecked by the startup (load) time. Large amounts of JavaScript code are required to create rich web experiences that we’ve become used to. When we look at the total size of JavaScript requested on mobile devices from HTTPArchive, we see that an average page loads 350KB of JavaScript, while 10% of pages go over the 1MB threshold. The rise of more complex applications can push these numbers even higher. "more complex applications" "rich web experiences" Stop lying to me, you slimy fuckers! This isn't an application, it's just you cramming more shit into your websites! Nobody needs to load 350KB of JavaScript, except possibly ports of actual, complex applications (e.g. 3D game engines), which your React monstrosity isn't. Can't they at least write their shit in WebAssembly? Then it should be much smaller and faster, and also harder to block. But of course, this is too difficult for these so-called people who find anything that isn't Python/JavaScript/Scratch "toxic masculinity" - not making this one up. Interesting to not see Google involved on this, but then they would prefer to download an app for that™ on your Android smartdevices, or maybe some Chrome-specific feature. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. –Napoleon In reality, I think it's much simpler. Google hires competent but soulless people, while large chunks of Mozilla appear to have genuine enthusiasm for the cancer that is HTML5 (or as I've recently taken to calling it, HTML5 plus JavaScript). HTML5 is not a markup language unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functional website made useful by jQuery, the JavaScript interpreter and frameworks comprising a full website as defined by Google. Google will probably go along with it, but you should always keep in mind that Mozilla are just a puppet of them and so there's no guarantee for who's actually proposing it. Facebook are a mystery though. First they hire Indians to write a 0.3GB app. Then what do they do? a) bring in normal developers to right the ship b) bring in extremely good developers to find a way to bypass internal limits on the code size That reddit thread gives a good view of their perspective: Posted by some guy who presumably works there I don't get it. They have infinite money. Can't they just pay another team (in another country and language, so that there's no overlap) to re-write the whole app, have them do it properly, then fire the old team when testers can't tell the two apps apart any longer in double blind testing? The million-dollar question is of course as always, are our new Chinese overlords going to keep writing these monstrosities, or will they settle for good ol' IE6 and XP? Because I tell you, I'd far rather use IE6+XP than this. At least with IE6+XP you're using stable and proven technologies. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| Screwtape |
Posted on 19-05-18, 23:31
|
|
Full mod
 Post: #249 of 443 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1101 days Last view: 172 days |
Posted by sureanem It's interesting that you read that tweet as an unironic example of the world-view you're annoyed by, rather than as a joke from somebody who shares your views. genuine enthusiasm for the cancer that is HTML5 (or as I've recently taken to calling it, HTML5 plus JavaScript) I see what you did there. ;) I don't get it. They have infinite money. Can't they just pay another team (in another country and language, so that there's no overlap) to re-write the whole app, have them do it properly, then fire the old team when testers can't tell the two apps apart any longer in double blind testing? That's the old "we'll work on both systems in parallel until the new system can replace the old system" trap, which generally results in both systems running in parallel until somebody notices the new system is guzzling money and nobody's using it, so it gets canned. Believe it or not, buying your way out of resource limits is legitimately the easier option: it's work for your administrators, so it doesn't cost you developer effort, and the money spent is effective immediately, instead of after a six-month hiring-and-interviewing effort, and another six month training effort, and another two or three years on-the-job experience. Because I tell you, I'd far rather use IE6+XP than this. At least with IE6+XP you're using stable and proven technologies. IE6+XP were products of exactly the same mindset that brings you Facebook Messenger today; if Facebook Messenger spends half its computrons on functionality and loses half through inefficiencies like "modularity" and "debuggability", IE6+XP did exactly the same thing, but they had less computrons to start with, so they were less inefficient on an absolute scale. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-19, 00:51
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #301 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
Posted by Screwtape Could be. He's right about C++ anyhow. But I wouldn't think so, based on the context of the overall conversation and his stated location. He retweeted a far more serious tweet arguing essentially the same point. He doesn't seem to be one of the webdev people though, just one of the Rust people, who are usually decent folks, so I suppose that undermines my point a bit. No idea about the woman, she seems to have changed judging by her recent tweets. I'd have nothing against people writing their websites in Rust anyhow, although it does tend to attract webdev people and I personally think it looks butt-ugly, but that's neither here nor there. That's the old "we'll work on both systems in parallel until the new system can replace the old system" trap, which generally results in both systems running in parallel until somebody notices the new system is guzzling money and nobody's using it, so it gets canned. Yeah, which would make sense, but does Facebook really add features at such a high rate that it'd be infeasible? They already maintain one version in parallel for the third world (not making this up) because the real one got too bloated. It'd be a new codebase, so I don't think it'd take them those three-four years to start working on it, assuming they're not hiring them fresh out of college. It should be a warning bell that their app has ballooned out of control, anyway. They didn't pay their way out of it, they expended developer effort on creating some kind of hack to postpone it. IE6+XP were products of exactly the same mindset that brings you Facebook Messenger today; if Facebook Messenger spends half its computrons on functionality and loses half through inefficiencies like "modularity" and "debuggability", IE6+XP did exactly the same thing, but they had less computrons to start with, so they were less inefficient on an absolute scale. Absolutely. But after a few iterations of Moore's law, IE6 and XP have become paragons of bleeding-edge optimization. If Microsoft had just never tried to force Vista (which of course it would always have done since it was inevitable and had to happen), then computers would have gotten cheaper and bloat would have forcefully been kept down. So logically, if the Chinese force us to go back to IE6+XP, that should likewise be a step forward for technology. It would also solve that whole Spectre issue, since people would have far bigger problems to worry about. I see no downsides. https://xkcd.com/1200/ There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| funkyass |
Posted on 19-05-19, 01:58
|
|
Post: #38 of 202
Since: 11-01-18 Last post: 660 days Last view: 16 days |
Undoing Spectre means going back to the 486. |
| Sintendo |
Posted on 19-05-19, 08:12
|
 Post: #12 of 17 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 1802 days Last view: 1374 days |
Posted by sureanemThey can't, because that's not what WebAssembly is for. It's like asm.js, a compilation target for languages like C and Rust, except with an actual binary format rather than shoehorning everything into a subset of JavaScript. Anything that needs access to the DOM still has to be done from JavaScript. |
| wareya |
Posted on 19-05-20, 12:14 (revision 1)
|
 Post: #62 of 100 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1782 days Last view: 1347 days |
Advertising through untrustworthy middlemen is inherently wrong, not just because of quality control problems, but also because like was mentioned, it needs to be invasive (read: kill users' privacy and target them based on tracking heuristics) to be truly profitable. Some things are just wrong. Nothing wrong with direct sponsorships though, as long as you're not shilling something without saying so, even though being honest about it makes it look like you sold out. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-20, 12:59
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #305 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1763 days Last view: 1761 days |
So what should be done then? Ads are invasive, and nobody wants to donate. Sponsorship isn't feasible for small/controversial/broad websites. This leaves crypto mining, which would be almost flawless provided it could be done with the GPU, but browsers block it because it threatens the ad industry. All the other options are far, far more immoral than tracking ads. Sure, most websites you could probably just run for free by optimizing the software, but some websites do have legitimate editorial expenses they can't get around. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
