The UNRWA has found rockets in their schools on multiple occasions:

http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-...

There were no rockets in the UN schools that IDF shelled while thousands of people were taking shelter.

That is poor advice which doesn't account for the difference between computer screens and ink on paper. The deepest black you can get on a monitor will not be as dark as certain inks on a page.

I'd argue that it does account for that difference, just not in an immediately obvious way. Screen displays are an additive color model and print is a subtractive one; screens shine light at you, paper has light shined on it. This makes for a very different perceptual feel; (completely) black ink on white paper is way less "contrasty" than #000 text on an #FFF background. WCAG accessibility guidelines suggest a minimum contrast ratio of 7:1 luminosity -- #000 on #FFF is a 21:1 contrast ratio!

In practice, I think we'd be better off darkening the background a little and lightening the foreground just a touch; #333 text on #F8F8F8 background still "feels" like black and white, but (assuming you've chosen a reasonable text size) it'll be a lot easier to read if you're dealing with long-form text.

I find it difficult to believe that the relative difference between #F8F8F8 and #FFFFFF matters at all relative to the the widely varying screen brightness settings on everyone's very different computers, tablets and phones in very different lighting conditions.

It's (generally) bad 'design' to fill areas with black, sure- but #000 outlines and text is just getting proper use of the limited dynamic range we're provided with.

#000 needs to be used tastefully, otherwise it can be visually overbearing.

Do you find this page visually overbearing because all of the non-downvoted comments are #000? I have never seen a page of text on a computer screen look overbearing because its color was #000 and not lighter.

What stands out more? The comments, or the names of those who comment?

Experiment, write this css into your dev tools:

    body * {
      color: #000 !important;
    }

No, but I probably would if the background were white.

Why?

#000 is easier to read on devices with that have dim backlights.

Have you read the Unix Haters Handbook?

http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf

I hadn't, looks like an hour of two of amusement.

While there are some occasional good points that could be converted in to solutions, I can't help but think that this book is more amusement than actual constructive criticisms well packaged.

It's a collection of some of the best rants from the Unix Haters mailing list that existed in the late eighties/early nineties. The people that were on the list usually had experience with operating systems that were more advanced than Unix. Constructive criticism was never really the point of the mailing list.

My point was that the parent's suggestion that anyone who criticizes Unix obviously isn't smart enough to understand it is just flat out wrong and offensive.

> the parent's suggestion that anyone who criticizes Unix obviously isn't smart enough to understand it

That wasn't what I was saying at all. But thanks for playing.

Sure, you could write a kernel in Lisp or Forth. But if you are a developer for a kernel that written in C/C++, you don't really have a choice.

The new interface requires more clicks than the last one in order to select the options, and since I don't agree with the default options, it is quite annoying. The contrast for the drop down options is really, really bad. The fixed headers are an enormous waste of screen real estate for small laptops, and when this is coupled with the smaller line width, the effect is that information density is a lot worse.

On the front page of Hacker News, the number of points and the time an item was posted are not a links, but on your search results page, they are. They're not underlined, so you just have to guess that they are links. The little heart, person, and clock icons make it harder for the eye to scan across the line, and since they're not links, they don't really serve any purpose.

If the changes must stay, I would appreciate a "classic style" search option, preferably at at different URL, so that I don't have to switch to the old style every time.

> There's also nothing wrong with cars which don't pop the lock back open if the car is off and the key is in the ignition, except that when such a technology exists, is pretty cheap / easy to implement, and can save users potentially a lot of trouble, why would you not implement it?

If you drive an armored car, then you wouldn't want the doors to automatically unlock whenever you put it in park. An ICE agent was killed three years ago in Mexico because of this feature.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/armored-suv...

Could you please change the body text color to something closer to #000, if not #000 itself? The current contrast ratio fails WAG AA and AAA standards for normal sized text.

What? In what context?

You should restart FF with addons disabled (Help > Restart with Add-ons Disabled) and then compare the two. If you want a "passive web browsing experience" on FF, you could create a separate profile.

Or you know, use Chrome. That way, I don't have to consider what type of "web browsing experience" I need to have today.

I have installed lots of extensions on FF because I find them to be useful. If I were to use Chrome as my primary browser and wanted the same features that my current FF setup gives me, then I would have to install extensions. But the extensions would slow Chrome down and then I would be back to square one. So "just use Chrome" is not a solution.

Maybe not for everyone. I find myself alone amongst many because I hate tools. The need for a tool means there is some problem that has to be solved. For instance, I much prefer languages that don't necessitate an IDE. I'd much rather program in Ruby, Python, Javascript, or anything else I can do competently in vi, with a 5 line .vimrc file. Even when in vi I only use like 5 commands. I find other ways to be effective. I can boot up Eclipse or IntelliJ or whatever and get the job done, but certainly there has to be a better way?

I installed Chrome because its fast. I liked it for web development because it had "Firebug" essentially built in. I eventually peeked back at Firefox to see if was doing anything interesting on the development side, but by that point much preferred the overall speed and simplicity of Chrome that I simply haven't bothered to go back.

Compared to IE, developing for both platforms rarely requires you to even check Firefox for correctness or performance once you get around the quirks or use more recently developed JS libraries.

I think the only extension I installed for Chrome was TamperMonkey. And a couple of things developed for work purposes.

That's what I do. I use chrome for a lot of stuff, but if I'm browsing video or or doing web development stuff I use FF.

And people here have told me that I'd like the Chrome dev tools better, but although I tried I was too lazy to completely switch so I just use FF and Firebug.

If you read that document carefully, you can see that the EFF edited one of passages that they quoted and did not mention their edit, which is a big no-no. The original letter says:

  (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason,
  it has definite practical significant.

which the EFF quoted as

  (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason,
  it has definite practical significance).

I expect that was accidental, but I agree it should be fixed (either corrected in brackets, or the original with a [sic]).