Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #467 > unrolled thread

SoylentNews.org is live

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  SoylentNews.org is live wjwlsn <ibillwilson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-17 01:52 +0000
    Re: SoylentNews.org is live RS Wood <rswood@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-17 09:22 +0000
      UTF-8 (was Re: SoylentNews.org is live) RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-17 09:47 +0000
        Re: UTF-8 (was Re: SoylentNews.org is live) Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-19 19:54 +0000
        Re: UTF-8 (was Re: SoylentNews.org is live) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2014-02-19 20:14 -0600
        Re: UTF-8 (was Re: SoylentNews.org is live) Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-02-23 10:33 +0000
    Re: SoylentNews.org is live wjwlsn <ibillwilson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-17 16:45 +0000
      Re: SoylentNews.org is live Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-18 09:46 -0500
        Re: SoylentNews.org is live RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-18 16:00 +0000
          Re: SoylentNews.org is live Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-18 17:06 -0800
            Re: SoylentNews.org is live Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-19 09:45 -0500
              Re: SoylentNews.org is live RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-19 14:59 +0000

#467 — SoylentNews.org is live

Looks pretty good, at least on thensurface. I just signed up and got userid 171.

http://soylentnews.org

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#475

In article <bmdpsqFhkbuU1@mid.individual.net>,
 wjwlsn <ibillwilson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Looks pretty good, at least on thensurface. I just signed up and got userid 
> 171.
> 
> http://soylentnews.org

Very fun!  I did too, and got 234.  Some day I'll bequeath it to my son, 
who will treasure his low user ID like something of value, ha ha!

I remember finally getting around to signing up at Slashdot, and getting 
a six digit UID in the 600,000s.  I thought, "half a million others 
before me, I must be absolutely the last one on the train."

Now that Slashdot UIDs surpass (I think) 2 million, I'm often one of the 
lower UIDs in discussions.  Life is strange.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#477 — UTF-8 (was Re: SoylentNews.org is live)

On 2014-02-17 09:22:16 +0000, RS Wood said:

> In article <bmdpsqFhkbuU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  wjwlsn <ibillwilson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Looks pretty good, at least on thensurface. I just signed up and got userid
>> 171.
>> 
>> http://soylentnews.org
> 
> Very fun!  I did too, and got 234.  Some day I'll bequeath it to my son,
> who will treasure his low user ID like something of value, ha ha!
> 
> I remember finally getting around to signing up at Slashdot, and getting
> a six digit UID in the 600,000s.  I thought, "half a million others
> before me, I must be absolutely the last one on the train."
> 
> Now that Slashdot UIDs surpass (I think) 2 million, I'm often one of the
> lower UIDs in discussions.  Life is strange.

Hey - they have enabled Unicode!  Here is a comment thread where people 
are testing it:
http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/02/16/2220240

It occurs to me to test Unicode here, too.  Here's a copy/paste of one 
line from that comment:
⡌⠁⠧⠑ ⠼⠁⠒ ⡍⠜⠇⠑⠹⠰⠎ ⡣⠕⠌
The above should be a single line of Braille characters, and I'm 
posting it from Unison, a UTF-capable Usenet client, so I'm hoping it 
works.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586 — Re: UTF-8 (was Re: SoylentNews.org is live)

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2014-02-17 09:22:16 +0000, RS Wood said:
> 
>> In article <bmdpsqFhkbuU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>  wjwlsn <ibillwilson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Looks pretty good, at least on thensurface. I just signed up and got userid
>>> 171.
>>>>> http://soylentnews.org
>>> Very fun!  I did too, and got 234.  Some day I'll bequeath it to my son,
>> who will treasure his low user ID like something of value, ha ha!
>>> I remember finally getting around to signing up at Slashdot, and getting
>> a six digit UID in the 600,000s.  I thought, "half a million others
>> before me, I must be absolutely the last one on the train."
>>> Now that Slashdot UIDs surpass (I think) 2 million, I'm often one of the
>> lower UIDs in discussions.  Life is strange.
> 
> Hey - they have enabled Unicode!  Here is a comment thread where people are testing it:
> http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/02/16/2220240
> 
> It occurs to me to test Unicode here, too.  Here's a copy/paste of one
> line from that comment:
> ⡌⠁⠧⠑ ⠼⠁⠒ ⡍⠜⠇⠑⠹⠰⠎ ⡣⠕⠌
> The above should be a single line of Braille characters, and I'm posting
> it from Unison, a UTF-capable Usenet client, so I'm hoping it works.

I see it just fine using Newstap for iOS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594 — Re: UTF-8 (was Re: SoylentNews.org is live)

On 2/17/2014 3:47 AM, RS Wood wrote:

> Hey - they have enabled Unicode!  Here is a comment thread where
> people are testing it:
> http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/02/16/2220240
> 
> It occurs to me to test Unicode here, too.  Here's a copy/paste of one
> line from that comment:
> ⡌⠁⠧⠑ ⠼⠁⠒ ⡍⠜⠇⠑⠹⠰⠎ ⡣⠕⠌
> The above should be a single line of Braille characters, and I'm
> posting it from Unison, a UTF-capable Usenet client, so I'm hoping it
> works.
> 

Looks fine (using Thunderbird here, news server is eternal-september).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#776 — Re: UTF-8 (was Re: SoylentNews.org is live)

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:47:19 +0000, RS Wood wrote:

> On 2014-02-17 09:22:16 +0000, RS Wood said:
> 
>> In article <bmdpsqFhkbuU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>  wjwlsn <ibillwilson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Looks pretty good, at least on thensurface. I just signed up and got
>>> userid 171.
>>> 
>>> http://soylentnews.org
>> 
>> Very fun!  I did too, and got 234.  Some day I'll bequeath it to my
>> son,
>> who will treasure his low user ID like something of value, ha ha!
>> 
>> I remember finally getting around to signing up at Slashdot, and
>> getting a six digit UID in the 600,000s.  I thought, "half a million
>> others before me, I must be absolutely the last one on the train."
>> 
>> Now that Slashdot UIDs surpass (I think) 2 million, I'm often one of
>> the lower UIDs in discussions.  Life is strange.
> 
> Hey - they have enabled Unicode!  Here is a comment thread where people
> are testing it:
> http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/02/16/2220240
> 
> It occurs to me to test Unicode here, too.  Here's a copy/paste of one
> line from that comment:
> ⡌⠁⠧⠑ ⠼⠁⠒ ⡍⠜⠇⠑⠹⠰⠎ ⡣⠕⠌
> The above should be a single line of Braille characters, and I'm posting
> it from Unison, a UTF-capable Usenet client, so I'm hoping it works.

Wow! Works fine here on pan.



-- 
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#502

Bruce Perens just posted some details of his upcoming revival of Technocrat.net at
http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=104&cid=1086

Full text: "I am doing the last bit of work before bringing Technocrat.net back online today. The software is brand new, and not as functional as the slashcode here (moderation doesn't work yet) but it's going in a different direction that I hope will raise the level of discourse. No ACs. Extra status for people who post using their real name. Moderation of subm
issions once they're published (Haven't you wanted to down-moderate bad articles on Slashdot?). Moderation of comments on two axes: comportment (behavior) and content. Editors get to delete comments, the garbage we're so used to on Slashdot doesn't get to stick around. Optimized for caching (I serve through Cloudflare, so this is a scalability thing, but if you 
can use a proxy it helps there, too). Minimal Javascript (you need Javacript to moderate, and to submit, but not to read at all). Device agnostic. Very sparse styling."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#528

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:45:02 -04-59 (UTC), wjwlsn
<ibillwilson@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bruce Perens just posted some details of his upcoming revival of Technocrat.net at
>http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=104&cid=1086
>
>Full text: "I am doing the last bit of work before bringing Technocrat.net back online today. The software is brand new, and not as functional as the slashcode here (moderation doesn't work yet) but it's going in a different direction that I hope will raise the level of discourse. No ACs. Extra status for people who post using their real name. Moderation of subm
>issions once they're published (Haven't you wanted to down-moderate bad articles on Slashdot?). Moderation of comments on two axes: comportment (behavior) and content. Editors get to delete comments, the garbage we're so used to on Slashdot doesn't get to stick around. Optimized for caching (I serve through Cloudflare, so this is a scalability thing, but if you 
>can use a proxy it helps there, too). Minimal Javascript (you need Javacript to moderate, and to submit, but not to read at all). Device agnostic. Very sparse styling."


That editors can delete comments I consider a Very Bad Thing, since
too often we've seen it used to censors opinions with which they do
not agree. 

Nor do I agree with the fact that anonymous posting is forbidden. It
creates a barrier for new users, and sometimes the most insightful
comments are also the most disagreeable, so posting anonymously allows
a wider range of opinions.

Technocrat.net is going to end up another closed Internet community
that won't be open to opinions contrary to the common groupthink. Good
luck to Perens in his attempt to revive his site, but if this is the
direction he intends to go, I do not think I will be joining him on
his journey.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#530

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:45:02 -04-59 (UTC), wjwlsn
> <ibillwilson@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Bruce Perens just posted some details of his upcoming revival of Technocrat.net at
>> http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=104&cid=1086
>>
>> Full text: "I am doing the last bit of work before bringing Technocrat.net back online today. The software is brand new, and not as functional as the slashcode here (moderation doesn't work yet) but it's going in a different direction that I hope will raise the level of discourse. No ACs. Extra status for people who post using their real name. Moderation of subm
>> issions once they're published (Haven't you wanted to down-moderate bad articles on Slashdot?). Moderation of comments on two axes: comportment (behavior) and content. Editors get to delete comments, the garbage we're so used to on Slashdot doesn't get to stick around. Optimized for caching (I serve through Cloudflare, so this is a scalability thing, but if you
>> can use a proxy it helps there, too). Minimal Javascript (you need Javacript to moderate, and to submit, but not to read at all). Device agnostic. Very sparse styling."
>
>
> That editors can delete comments I consider a Very Bad Thing, since
> too often we've seen it used to censors opinions with which they do
> not agree.
>
> Nor do I agree with the fact that anonymous posting is forbidden. It
> creates a barrier for new users, and sometimes the most insightful
> comments are also the most disagreeable, so posting anonymously allows
> a wider range of opinions.
>
> Technocrat.net is going to end up another closed Internet community
> that won't be open to opinions contrary to the common groupthink. Good
> luck to Perens in his attempt to revive his site, but if this is the
> direction he intends to go, I do not think I will be joining him on
> his journey.
>
>
This is interesting.  I'm going to have to think about it some more, and 
I'm definitely open to the idea that there are potential improvements to 
be made in moderation systems, article-submission protocols, etc.  But I 
do agree that as proposed, it's not overwhelmingly clear the Technocrat 
model is going to be an improvement.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#554

On 2014-02-18 16:00:06 +0000, RS Wood said:

> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:45:02 -04-59 (UTC), wjwlsn
>> <ibillwilson@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Bruce Perens just posted some details of his upcoming revival of 
>>> Technocrat.net at
>>> http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=104&cid=1086
>>> 
>>> Full text: "I am doing the last bit of work before bringing 
>>> Technocrat.net back online today. The software is brand new, and not as 
>>> functional as the slashcode here (moderation doesn't work yet) but it's 
>>> going in a different direction that I hope will raise the level of 
>>> discourse. No ACs. Extra status for people who post using their real 
>>> name. Moderation of subm
>>> issions once they're published (Haven't you wanted to down-moderate bad 
>>> articles on Slashdot?). Moderation of comments on two axes: comportment 
>>> (behavior) and content. Editors get to delete comments, the garbage 
>>> we're so used to on Slashdot doesn't get to stick around. Optimized for 
>>> caching (I serve through Cloudflare, so this is a scalability thing, 
>>> but if you
>>> can use a proxy it helps there, too). Minimal Javascript (you need 
>>> Javacript to moderate, and to submit, but not to read at all). Device 
>>> agnostic. Very sparse styling."
>> 
>> 
>> That editors can delete comments I consider a Very Bad Thing, since
>> too often we've seen it used to censors opinions with which they do
>> not agree.
>> 
>> Nor do I agree with the fact that anonymous posting is forbidden. It
>> creates a barrier for new users, and sometimes the most insightful
>> comments are also the most disagreeable, so posting anonymously allows
>> a wider range of opinions.
>> 
>> Technocrat.net is going to end up another closed Internet community
>> that won't be open to opinions contrary to the common groupthink. Good
>> luck to Perens in his attempt to revive his site, but if this is the
>> direction he intends to go, I do not think I will be joining him on
>> his journey.
>> 
>> 
> This is interesting.  I'm going to have to think about it some more, 
> and I'm definitely open to the idea that there are potential 
> improvements to be made in moderation systems, article-submission 
> protocols, etc.  But I do agree that as proposed, it's not 
> overwhelmingly clear the Technocrat model is going to be an improvement.

So it has all the same flaws that Slashdot had, and more, without the 
interesting user base generating the comments that realistically, are 
the only reason anybody even visits Slashdot any more.  I'm not trading 
cyber-AIDS for cyber-cancer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#571

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:06:20 -0800, Oregonian Haruspex
<bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2014-02-18 16:00:06 +0000, RS Wood said:
>
>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:45:02 -04-59 (UTC), wjwlsn
>>> <ibillwilson@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Bruce Perens just posted some details of his upcoming revival of 
>>>> Technocrat.net at
>>>> http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=104&cid=1086
>>>> 
>>>> Full text: "I am doing the last bit of work before bringing 
>>>> Technocrat.net back online today. The software is brand new, and not as 
>>>> functional as the slashcode here (moderation doesn't work yet) but it's 
>>>> going in a different direction that I hope will raise the level of 
>>>> discourse. No ACs. Extra status for people who post using their real 
>>>> name. Moderation of subm
>>>> issions once they're published (Haven't you wanted to down-moderate bad 
>>>> articles on Slashdot?). Moderation of comments on two axes: comportment 
>>>> (behavior) and content. Editors get to delete comments, the garbage 
>>>> we're so used to on Slashdot doesn't get to stick around. Optimized for 
>>>> caching (I serve through Cloudflare, so this is a scalability thing, 
>>>> but if you
>>>> can use a proxy it helps there, too). Minimal Javascript (you need 
>>>> Javacript to moderate, and to submit, but not to read at all). Device 
>>>> agnostic. Very sparse styling."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That editors can delete comments I consider a Very Bad Thing, since
>>> too often we've seen it used to censors opinions with which they do
>>> not agree.
>>> 
>>> Nor do I agree with the fact that anonymous posting is forbidden. It
>>> creates a barrier for new users, and sometimes the most insightful
>>> comments are also the most disagreeable, so posting anonymously allows
>>> a wider range of opinions.
>>> 
>>> Technocrat.net is going to end up another closed Internet community
>>> that won't be open to opinions contrary to the common groupthink. Good
>>> luck to Perens in his attempt to revive his site, but if this is the
>>> direction he intends to go, I do not think I will be joining him on
>>> his journey.
>>> 
>>> 
>> This is interesting.  I'm going to have to think about it some more, 
>> and I'm definitely open to the idea that there are potential 
>> improvements to be made in moderation systems, article-submission 
>> protocols, etc.  But I do agree that as proposed, it's not 
>> overwhelmingly clear the Technocrat model is going to be an improvement.
>
>So it has all the same flaws that Slashdot had, and more, without the 
>interesting user base generating the comments that realistically, are 
>the only reason anybody even visits Slashdot any more.  I'm not trading 
>cyber-AIDS for cyber-cancer.

Certainly it doesn't seem to spurring the same sort of interest as
SoylentNews.org; there are barely any users and most of the comments
seem to be just testing the comment system. Arguably this is because
of how new the site is, but I have to wonder if that is all there is
to it. It also sounds like Perens is doing all the work himself,
unlike Soylent which attracted a herd of developers to its cause. 

And even as somebody who has been happy reading Usenet for 30 years, I
have to say the site's design is a major turn-off; it's just too damn
plain. I mean, I know all this started over how Dice was adding too
much chrome and fluff, but there's a lower limit to that sort of stuff
too. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#574

>> So it has all the same flaws that Slashdot had, and more, without the
>> interesting user base generating the comments that realistically, are
>> the only reason anybody even visits Slashdot any more.  I'm not trading
>> cyber-AIDS for cyber-cancer.
>
> Certainly it doesn't seem to spurring the same sort of interest as
> SoylentNews.org; there are barely any users and most of the comments
> seem to be just testing the comment system. Arguably this is because
> of how new the site is, but I have to wonder if that is all there is
> to it. It also sounds like Perens is doing all the work himself,
> unlike Soylent which attracted a herd of developers to its cause.
>
> And even as somebody who has been happy reading Usenet for 30 years, I
> have to say the site's design is a major turn-off; it's just too damn
> plain. I mean, I know all this started over how Dice was adding too
> much chrome and fluff, but there's a lower limit to that sort of stuff
> too.

I just signed up for Technocrat a few minutes ago.  Yes, single digit 
comments and all posts signed by Perens.  He's off to a tough start. 
But who knows how it will all wind up?

One issue is that Soylent had an almost-working codebase.  Contributors 
(not just developers but people anxious to have a place to call home) 
knew where they were going and mostly what it would look like when it 
come to be.  That's powerful stuff for an organization.

Perens on the other hand has a code base that's incomplete, and no one 
around but him who knows/understands what it will look like when it's 
done.  That makes it hard by definition for anyone, no matter how 
willing, to help.  And that makes it into a one man project.

Perens might have some good ideas of what his code will do.  But that's 
a huge difference from a group of committed individuals hustling to get 
a known quantity onto "the market" so to speak, and only minor fixes 
necessary to get the code running.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web