why the fuck do i keep reading the verge

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > why the fuck do i keep reading the verge

«‹›4 »

duTrieux.: Oct 9, 2003

undershirt can mean t-shirt. basically some other shirt. any shirt. god

# ? Sep 4, 2015 03:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 15:23

neutral milf hotel: Oct 9, 2001; by Fluffdaddy

duTrieux. posted:

undershirt can mean t-shirt. basically some other shirt. any shirt. god

nice snipe

# ? Sep 4, 2015 03:46

The Management: Jan 2, 2010; sup, bitch?

duTrieux. posted:

yeah let me just wear a dress shirt with no undershirt like a loving cave-animal

guys who have some color and chest hair can get away with this. I'm gonna allow it.

# ? Sep 4, 2015 04:16

PleasureKevin: Jan 2, 2011

Breakfast All Day posted:

lol wut. do you let the old guy at jc penny dress you

# ? Sep 4, 2015 04:23

duTrieux.: Oct 9, 2003

The Management posted:

guys who have some color and chest hair can get away with this. I'm gonna allow it.

wait, what is "this" referring to

# ? Sep 4, 2015 04:26

Triglav: Jun 2, 2007; IT IS HARAAM TO SEND SMILEY FACES THROUGH THE INTERNET

grats to all the people out there wearing dress shirts like theyre fuckin hawaiian shirts

# ? Sep 4, 2015 04:38

Breakfast All Day: Oct 21, 2004

dress shirts without an undershirt?!? next youll be wearing trousers without pleats and cuffs, or loafers without tassels!

# ? Sep 4, 2015 04:41

PleasureKevin: Jan 2, 2011

or fedoras without feathers

# ? Sep 4, 2015 05:01

pram: Jun 10, 2001

wingtips without spats

# ? Sep 4, 2015 05:42

NoneMoreNegative: Jul 20, 2000; GOTH FASCISTIC
PAIN MASTER

shit wizard dad

Breakfast All Day posted:

lol wut. do you let the old guy at jc penny dress you

all right sir; suit pants, undershirt, dress shirt, and mustn't forget!

/ties onion to trouser belt loop.

# ? Sep 4, 2015 10:40

maniacdevnull: Apr 18, 2007; FOUR CUBIC FRAMES
DISPROVES SOFT G GOD
YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID

Triglav posted:

grats to all the people out there wearing dress shirts like theyre fuckin hawaiian shirts

I wear my shirtwaists however I like and I will not be cowed by this microaggression

# ? Sep 4, 2015 13:49

The Management: Jan 2, 2010; sup, bitch?

this microaggression will not stand, man

# ? Sep 4, 2015 15:31

Shaggar: Apr 26, 2006

Triglav posted:

wow, the verge's css is 500kb. that's impressive. then they load another 200kb css for typekit fonts

the html alone on this page is 270kb with 1743 elements. the article is five paragraphs

and this is months after their parent company declared "performance bankruptcy" and started cutting nonessential code

web "development" is retarded

# ? Sep 4, 2015 15:37

The Management: Jan 2, 2010; sup, bitch?

the verge is actually a browser stress test disguised as a bad tech site

# ? Sep 4, 2015 15:49

Blackula69: Apr 1, 2007; ＤＥＨＵＭＡＮＩＺＥＹＯＵＲＳＥＬＦ＆ＦＡＣＥＴＯＢＬＡＣＵＬＡ

can someone explain what that bigass list of code means

# ? Sep 4, 2015 16:38

The Management: Jan 2, 2010; sup, bitch?

Blackula69 posted:

can someone explain what that bigass list of code means

it means the verge is very bad at making websites

# ? Sep 4, 2015 17:20

Triglav: Jun 2, 2007; IT IS HARAAM TO SEND SMILEY FACES THROUGH THE INTERNET

Blackula69 posted:

can someone explain what that bigass list of code means

the first one is them declaring a transparent background on a huge-rear end list of selectors (think h1, h2, h3, p, ol, ul or whatever if you know html). probably because someone shouted DRY DRY DO NOT REPEAT YOURSELF DRY too many times. it keeps them from writing that individual declaration across 100 different selectors. it just looks loving hilarious that they have that much poo poo to declare it on

how some people get around doing what the verge did without increasing filesize 300% is making a generic class and then adding that class to whatever thing needs it, but that has the effect of making html some bits larger (probably less than the css, though)

but they have a few more like that. right above that one in the code is another for declaring that just as many things shouldnt display on the page. the real question is then "why do you have them on the page?" but maybe they hide them at first and then display them with javascript. either way it sucks

the second group is similar to the first, but instead it's them declaring a bunch of things to have specific background colors

it's the product of an automated build process. everything's overbaked. i'm sure all of the poo poo they declared background-color: transparent; is unnecessary. it only seems necessary if they already told it to have a color and are then overwriting it to not have a color

overwriting declarations is bad for performance, telling something to be blue then green then red, etc. so instead of repeating those declarations, they're repeating those selectors. it's like

code:

h1 {display: block;}
h1 {color: black;}
h1 {background-color: transparent;}
h1 {font-size: 2em;}
h1 {margin-top: 0.67em;}
h1 {margin-right: 0;}
h1 {margin-bottom: 0.67em;}
h1 {margin-left: 0;}

instead of

code:

h1 {
    display: block;
    color: black;
    background-color: transparent;
    font-size: 2em;
    margin: 0.67em 0;
}

because you might overwrite one of those declarations later down the cascade

honestly you dont need most of any of that code in the first place because they're browser defaults but it's just an example

so yeah, instead of repeating their declarations, theyre repeating their selectors, and now the css file is half a megabyte

when approaching a website, you may wanna ask yourself what you hope to display on it. is it words, pictures, links to other articles, advertisements? the content readers clicked for in this case were a heading, five paragraphs, and a flavor image

code:

<h1>heading</h1>
<img src="picture.jpg" alt="skateboarder doing a sick ollie">
<p>paragraph</p>
<p>paragraph</p>
<p>paragraph</p>
<p>paragraph</p>
<p>paragraph</p>

yet the vast majority of html, css, and js running was detritus

yeah, put some branding up, navigation, links and images for more articles, whatever, but as is you can go on the gutenberg project or whatever and download whole books for the same amount of bandwidth it takes to load one five paragraph verge article

# ? Sep 4, 2015 17:46

Beeftweeter: Jun 28, 2005; OFFICIAL #1 GNOME FAN

duTrieux. posted:

wait, what is "this" referring to

sniping

# ? Sep 4, 2015 18:53

duTrieux.: Oct 9, 2003

Triglav posted:

the first one is them declaring a transparent background on a huge-rear end list of selectors (think h1, h2, h3, p, ol, ul or whatever if you know html). probably because someone shouted DRY DRY DO NOT REPEAT YOURSELF DRY too many times. it keeps them from writing that individual declaration across 100 different selectors. it just looks loving hilarious that they have that much poo poo to declare it on

how some people get around doing what the verge did without increasing filesize 300% is making a generic class and then adding that class to whatever thing needs it, but that has the effect of making html some bits larger (probably less than the css, though)

but they have a few more like that. right above that one in the code is another for declaring that just as many things shouldnt display on the page. the real question is then "why do you have them on the page?" but maybe they hide them at first and then display them with javascript. either way it sucks

the second group is similar to the first, but instead it's them declaring a bunch of things to have specific background colors

it's the product of an automated build process. everything's overbaked. i'm sure all of the poo poo they declared background-color: transparent; is unnecessary. it only seems necessary if they already told it to have a color and are then overwriting it to not have a color

overwriting declarations is bad for performance, telling something to be blue then green then red, etc. so instead of repeating those declarations, they're repeating those selectors. it's like
code:
h1 {display: block;}
h1 {color: black;}
h1 {background-color: transparent;}
h1 {font-size: 2em;}
h1 {margin-top: 0.67em;}
h1 {margin-right: 0;}
h1 {margin-bottom: 0.67em;}
h1 {margin-left: 0;}
instead of
code:
h1 {
 display: block;
 color: black;
 background-color: transparent;
 font-size: 2em;
 margin: 0.67em 0;
}
because you might overwrite one of those declarations later down the cascade

honestly you dont need most of any of that code in the first place because they're browser defaults but it's just an example

so yeah, instead of repeating their declarations, theyre repeating their selectors, and now the css file is half a megabyte

when approaching a website, you may wanna ask yourself what you hope to display on it. is it words, pictures, links to other articles, advertisements? the content readers clicked for in this case were a heading, five paragraphs, and a flavor image
code:
<h1>heading</h1>
<img src="picture.jpg" alt="skateboarder doing a sick ollie">
paragraph
paragraph
paragraph
paragraph
paragraph
yet the vast majority of html, css, and js running was detritus

yeah, put some branding up, navigation, links and images for more articles, whatever, but as is you can go on the gutenberg project or whatever and download whole books for the same amount of bandwidth it takes to load one five paragraph verge article

they're probably using (or used at some point and are afraid to clean up after) an overwrought css reset that mostly just repeats browser defaults

# ? Sep 4, 2015 19:11

pram: Jun 10, 2001

i already told you morons what theyre doing

code:

%whatever {
    background-color: #3993b2;
}

%whatever2 {
    background-color: #8ec241;
}

.no-touch {
    @extend %whatever;

    & .apple-core {
        @extend %whatever;
    }

    & .forum-icon-link:link {
        @extend %whatever;
    }
}

.p-entry-header__labels {
    @extend %whatever2;

    & li.android {
        @extend %whatever2;
    }

    & a:link {
        @extend %whatever2;
    }
}

code:

.no-touch, .no-touch .apple-core, .no-touch .forum-icon-link:link {
  background-color: #3993b2;
}

.p-entry-header__labels, .p-entry-header__labels li.android, .p-entry-header__labels a:link {
  background-color: #8ec241;
}

ad nauseam

# ? Sep 4, 2015 19:19

pram: Jun 10, 2001

Triglav posted:

probably because someone shouted DRY DRY DO NOT REPEAT YOURSELF DRY too many times. it keeps them from writing that individual declaration across 100 different selectors.

the dry part comes from their css preprocessor you dunce. no one looks at the machine produced css, and it sure as gently caress doesnt affect performance

# ? Sep 4, 2015 19:32

pram: Jun 10, 2001

especially when there are about 10,000 different javascript things loading on those pages

# ? Sep 4, 2015 19:35

Triglav: Jun 2, 2007; IT IS HARAAM TO SEND SMILEY FACES THROUGH THE INTERNET

pram posted:

the dry part comes from their css preprocessor you dunce. no one looks at the machine produced css, and it sure as gently caress doesnt affect performance

yeah that's why i said it comes from their build process

# ? Sep 4, 2015 19:51

pram: Jun 10, 2001

lmao that was like 1000 words into yr essay

# ? Sep 4, 2015 19:53

Squeezy Farm: Jun 16, 2009

Triglav posted:

the first one is them declaring a transparent background on a huge-rear end list of selectors (think h1, h2, h3, p, ol, ul or whatever if you know html). probably because someone shouted DRY DRY DO NOT REPEAT YOURSELF DRY too many times. it keeps them from writing that individual declaration across 100 different selectors. it just looks loving hilarious that they have that much poo poo to declare it on

how some people get around doing what the verge did without increasing filesize 300% is making a generic class and then adding that class to whatever thing needs it, but that has the effect of making html some bits larger (probably less than the css, though)

but they have a few more like that. right above that one in the code is another for declaring that just as many things shouldnt display on the page. the real question is then "why do you have them on the page?" but maybe they hide them at first and then display them with javascript. either way it sucks

the second group is similar to the first, but instead it's them declaring a bunch of things to have specific background colors

it's the product of an automated build process. everything's overbaked. i'm sure all of the poo poo they declared background-color: transparent; is unnecessary. it only seems necessary if they already told it to have a color and are then overwriting it to not have a color

overwriting declarations is bad for performance, telling something to be blue then green then red, etc. so instead of repeating those declarations, they're repeating those selectors. it's like
code:
h1 {display: block;}
h1 {color: black;}
h1 {background-color: transparent;}
h1 {font-size: 2em;}
h1 {margin-top: 0.67em;}
h1 {margin-right: 0;}
h1 {margin-bottom: 0.67em;}
h1 {margin-left: 0;}
instead of
code:
h1 {
 display: block;
 color: black;
 background-color: transparent;
 font-size: 2em;
 margin: 0.67em 0;
}
because you might overwrite one of those declarations later down the cascade

honestly you dont need most of any of that code in the first place because they're browser defaults but it's just an example

so yeah, instead of repeating their declarations, theyre repeating their selectors, and now the css file is half a megabyte

when approaching a website, you may wanna ask yourself what you hope to display on it. is it words, pictures, links to other articles, advertisements? the content readers clicked for in this case were a heading, five paragraphs, and a flavor image
code:
<h1>heading</h1>
<img src="picture.jpg" alt="skateboarder doing a sick ollie">
paragraph
paragraph
paragraph
paragraph
paragraph
yet the vast majority of html, css, and js running was detritus

yeah, put some branding up, navigation, links and images for more articles, whatever, but as is you can go on the gutenberg project or whatever and download whole books for the same amount of bandwidth it takes to load one five paragraph verge article

yeah, gently caress em up! their coding sucks rear end!!

# ? Sep 4, 2015 19:56

Triglav: Jun 2, 2007; IT IS HARAAM TO SEND SMILEY FACES THROUGH THE INTERNET

thx

# ? Sep 4, 2015 20:00

computer toucher: Jan 8, 2012

The Management posted:

this is a replay of the political correctness movement back in the early 90s. for those of you too young to remember, before the term PC just meant "not racist", it was a campus movement to kill speech that didn't agree with certain lines of thought. pretty much extreme left wing fascism that everyone had to think and speak correctly with their ideology. it was a big deal at the time but eventually got watered down.

the same kind of thing is happening here. you can't say anything that "triggers" anyone, so your speech is constrained to only what they find acceptable, and their extremist idiot educators are encouraging this as a positive instead of calling it out as a tool to cripple opposing thought. ultimately the people coming out of this environment are unfit to function in the real world because they cannot interact with other humans in a constructive way.

Educators are not encouraging it, but are being held hostage by it. They have to play along or face certain unemployment. It's the idiot students who run this shitshow and the school boards who punish educators for pushing back against it. When the schools are businesses that cater to their customers, the paying students, of course you lose integrity. Integrity is bad for business.

# ? Sep 5, 2015 11:53

heated game moment: Oct 30, 2003; Lipstick Apathy

I support new graduates being functionally retarded for years after school and having severe emotional problems as a result of being coddled bc it makes me look way better in comparison

# ? Sep 5, 2015 17:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 15:23

Blackula69: Apr 1, 2007; ＤＥＨＵＭＡＮＩＺＥＹＯＵＲＳＥＬＦ＆ＦＡＣＥＴＯＢＬＡＣＵＬＡ

Triglav posted:

thx

cool, that was interesting.

# ? Sep 5, 2015 21:58

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > why the fuck do i keep reading the verge

«‹›4 »