"Back in my day, laptops were about TECHNOLOGY! Where's the conservative stickers!?" Ok, put some "conservative stickers" on your laptop and submit a pic to the site-- no one's stopping you.

I was born in early 90s; all laptops in my memory have weird, silly stickers on them.

I tend to just scroll on if I don't like something, rather than commenting about it. But I would be lying if I said I've never done it. It's a very human thing, on a forum like this that invites open discussion about things it is fine, and pretty obviously if the pictures have a bunch of political messages on them you would not be flabbergasted to see a some political comments. Maybe the comments are cringy, silly, wrong, not aligned with your beliefs, or unnecessary, but seeing hostility in disagreement or dislike is a pretty bad place to be.

I'm not sure why you interpreted my comment in the way that you did.

People self-expressing dislike for some content under a link on public forum that explicitly invites comment is not hostility. Making comments and disagreement about politics is not hostility (particularly in response to political content being posted). It just isn't.

If you posted up a page of pictures of "Lifted trucks of West Virginia adorned with creative bumper stickers" here you would get a lot of negative opinions and politcial commentary. That also would not be "weird hostility", it would be completely obvious and understandable preferences and opinions ranging from people who don't like the trucks or covering them with stickers, to those who feel strongly about politics.

Again, you're allowed to discuss things and disagree with them. People aren't assholes or hostile for doing it. Learn to live and let live, no need to try to guilt people about it.

It's not a "scenario" - it's a comparison, an example. It's no different to this forum - people choose to come here. Someone chose to share TFA. People chose to enter these comments and shit on people's design choices and take weird stands about political balance.

> If you posted up a page of pictures of "Lifted trucks of West Virginia adorned with creative bumper stickers" here you would get a lot of negative opinions and politcial commentary. That also would not be "weird hostility", it would be completely obvious and understandable preferences and opinions ranging from people who don't like the trucks or covering them with stickers, to those who feel strongly about politics.

Sure, these are obviously the same...

> Again, you're allowed to discuss things and disagree with them. People aren't assholes or hostile for doing it. Learn to live and let live, no need to try to guilt people about it.

Those people could "learn to live and let live" with regards to people harmlessly putting stickers on their laptops.

Semantics. You invented a scenario and you attempted to make some point that presumably you were unable to make with the situation at hand.

> It's no different to this forum - people choose to come here. Someone chose to share TFA. People chose to enter these comments and shit on people's design choices and take weird stands about political balance.

I think it is different. If it were not different you would not have been compelled to think of it.

> Sure, these are obviously the same...

Now you don't like "comparisons"? It's more similar than your one.

> Those people could "learn to live and let live" with regards to people harmlessly putting stickers on their laptops.

Expressing a dislike for something is not incompatible with live and let live. It is participating in a conversation. It's not hostile, it doesn't need to be guilted or suppressed or name-called.

Not actually responding to the essence of the comparison.

> Now you don't like "comparisons"?

Just bad-faith comparisons that equate "Just Be Yourself" stickers with "I hate fags" stickers

> Expressing a dislike for something is not incompatible with live and let live. It is participating in a conversation. It's not hostile, it doesn't need to be guilted or suppressed or name-called.

Again, if you consider a group of people sharing their art between each other and having a conversation about it, and someone comes in and is like "This art is stupid." that is hostile. That is exactly what is happening here.

The comparison was a bad-faith strawman that did not reflect the conversation here. In that situation a person might be an asshole, possibly even hostile. That does not automatically make these commenters hostile assholes, that's just the height of intellectual laziness.

> Just bad-faith comparisons that equate "Just Be Yourself" stickers with "I hate fags" stickers

No I didn't make that comparison, and you're a nasty and intellectually dishonest person for trying to say I did.

> Again, if you consider a group of people sharing their art between each other and having a conversation about it, and someone comes in and is like "This art is stupid." that is hostile. That is exactly what is happening here.

No that's not hostile. Somebody submitted this content inviting the HN community to comment on it and oh my god not everybody loves it. Some even hate it and are blunt about it. That's not weird hostility, it's people self-expressing their dislike of things in not always polite terms. Like some of these laptop stickers are doing.

BTW I've been following LK for quite a while now and hope to use it sometime in the future. My regular DM is committed to a different platform, but I have a story that might turn into a campaign and I'd sub to LK to run it. Keep up the great work!

I didn't see any Java or COBOL or even .NET stickers, but there was at least a fairly clean one with a Sun sticker. And some Debian stickers, but those were a bit more cluttered. And maybe even that one with the cat around the Apple logo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...

Or were you drawing an equivalence between the two?

... and a duality within the present forms of society in which either expression is interesting enough or leads up to a significant event such that we will remember it in the future. No time has been one-sided as in the way you put it.

Sure, not everyone thought Naziism was good, because you can’t find any political philosophy in human history that everyone has the same opinion about. But it was still seen as a model by millions of people outside Germany until Germany started obviously losing the war.

Those people were wrong.

This isn't some kind of "oh morality is relative and somethings are cultural", it's just objectively wrong, regardless of who or how many people claim to like it.

In your individual opinion. In mine, too, and hopefully everyone else’s here. But the OP was clearly talking about what views are presented as “morally right” by normative social forces, and those clearly differ across time and place, often as political power waxes and wanes.

And even now we see that the normalization of naziism is apparently impossible - I was incredibly cynical about the American right wing happily embracing naziism, but I guess I was partially wrong: there's a schism this week over popular American right wing media figures platforming the nazi Nick Fuentes.

Before modernity, extraordinary violence and propaganda were, well, ordinary. Hitler just made that work on industrial scale, but the underlying moral ideas weren't anything new. During antiquity, people didn't mind slaughtering entire cities. Even more modern history is full shit like that, look up Mongol invasions.

BTW don't you think that it's a little awkward that in modern times "pirates", which were people that'd literally kill seamen for profit, are considered a fun Halloween theme for children? I can imagine that in 500 years Nazi costumes will be similarly normalized.

This is why posting about how “Nazism is objectively immoral, m’kay?" misses the point and can be counterproductive. The whole reason that fascism is a continual spectre is that, it turns out, by appealing to people’s base instincts and cracking heads, a malevolent political form can completely sidestep morality and institute the society it wants to see.

Just started my own business instead.

Getting some work experience and then starting my own thing was a better fit for me.

And all the FAANG combined probably don’t even have half that many positions, with negotiable salaries, in total worldwide.

Have you never read a report from any of the FAANGs?

e.g. Out of Google’s 183,000+ total headcount… maybe a quarter are engineering positions with negotiable salaries of any kind.

Still far better than a proprietary format.

1. You're relying on the external service to continue providing the export functionality, or else doing regular backups.

2. The format of the exports might be proprietary, so it might be orders of magnitude more difficult to parse.

3. The export might not contain all the data.

4. Even if the export isn't to a proprietary format, it might be to a format that's much harder to parse than Markdown. Markdown is not only a standard, it's fairly readable even without any parsing, as opposed to, say, exporting in HTML. Losing some functionality (often minor, depending on what you use Obsidian for) is better than losing more or all functionality.

2. Or it might be orders of magnitude easier to parse vs replicating all the plugins functionality. You're just arbitrarily making the alternative worse

3. That's again something you've made up that's not a generic feature of alternative proprietary format

4. It might also be export to markdown. Again, unless you make up artificial barriers

But you can also do it the other way, for example, anything non-trivial like some large table with in-cell formatting won't be readable in your primitive plain text-based proprietary format, so it will be much worse that the unreadable Excel xml or its binary alternative, but that would still be a much preferable export format since no, you're not going to develop a new spreadsheet parser that some obsidian plugin uses to make sense of it

> it's fairly readable even without any parsing, as opposed to, say, exporting in HTML.

that's true for primitive formatting needs, but in this case there are tools that can convert html to markdown that would easily do that

That's not necessarily true. Some apps keep only cached copies of the data and the rest on the cloud. Sometimes the local files are in a binary format that is unreadable without the export functionality, and newer releases of certain apps remove the export functionality.

> 2. Or it might be orders of magnitude easier to parse vs replicating all the plugins functionality. You're just arbitrarily making the alternative worse

Obviously this depends on the exact app.

But I don't think you can credibly claim that a textual format like markdown isn't easier to parse than... well, almost any other format.

> 3. That's again something you've made up that's not a generic feature of alternative proprietary format

I didn't make it up. It depends on the alternative app you're talking about. Some export full data including all metadata, some don't include all metadata, etc.

My point is that if all the data is actually just markdown files on your computer, there is no question of whether you have all the data.

> 4. It might also be export to markdown. Again, unless you make up artificial barriers

Once again, depends on the specific app. I was a long-term user of Evernote, and still have a subscription. I just checked, and it looks like you can export to a format called "enex", or to a single html page, or to pdf. That's awesome! And the chance that you won't be able to use this in another app is next to nothing, since everyone works to be able to import Evernote.

It's still a tradeoff between the extra functionality you get from Evernote, vs. the simplicity of the "export" files you have. In Obsidian, there's no separate export, the files are stored in simple-to-read Markdown. But you get less functionality.

It's a tradeoff. I'm not saying one is better than the other. But pretending there isn't a tradeoff is quite simply wrong.

> But you can also do it the other way, for example, anything non-trivial like some large table with in-cell formatting won't be readable in your primitive plain text-based proprietary format, so it will be much worse that the unreadable Excel xml or its binary alternative, but that would still be a much preferable export format since no, you're not going to develop a new spreadsheet parser that some obsidian plugin uses to make sense of it

Yes. I wouldn't use Obsidian to do anything that would require a spreadsheet. I'd simply use Excel, since it's a billion times better at it.

I'm certainly not against using the right tool for the job, nor am I against proprietary formats in general.

> and newer releases of certain apps remove the export functionality.

Then you'd just use the old release with the export functionality intact. You can also make up stuff like "Obsidian can release an app that deletes/encrypts all local files, retaining only the cloud copy, and start charging for it without having any export functionality"

> But I don't think you can credibly claim that a textual format like markdown isn't easier to parse than... well, almost any other format.

This isn't markdown, but markdown + dozens of extensions, so it's very easy to claim that it's much harder to write custom parsers for dozens of formats rather than use an existing parser for some more elaborate format that doesn't need those extensions.

> the files are stored in simple-to-read Markdown

they aren't, they're stored in an undefined format depending on which extensions you use. Part of it is markdown (which is not simple to read in the non-primitive case of richly formatted docs)

> there's no separate export

That's not a benefit! It means that you can't move outside of the Obsidian ecosystem because there is no well-defined format that you could use another app with! So it's (practically) even worse than Evernote since that one is already widely supported, though theoretically it's the same.

> But pretending there isn't a tradeoff is quite simply wrong.

Yet you've failed to identify it, turns out it all "depends on the specific app"! Fine, compare apps, but the general argument was about text-based proprietary format with a chance of data loss if the ecosystem dies (or a chance of requiring a lot of effort to convert), and a generic proprietary format that can be exported into a text-based format... with the same risks!

> This isn't markdown, but markdown + dozens of extensions,

Yes, if the way you use Obsidian includes dozens of extensions that each use a proprietary format, then it's similar to just using Evernote in many ways.

If you're mostly using plain markdown with only a few custom formats, then it's still easier.

If today, right now, Obsidian stopped working, I could literally open my Obsidian folder in VSCode and still be able to do 90% of the things that I do in Obsidian.

If today, right now, Evernote stopped working, it would take some effort to find a working version, export the files, convert them to markdown or whatever, etc.

I just don't know how you can claim that Obsidian is more effort to use outside of Obsidian than something proprietary.

Fast-forward a year, and all your vault structure implicitly relies on the quirks of Obsidian search behavior, the markdown you write is extremely obsidian-flavored markdown, and you don't even remember how to write LaTeX without LaTeX-Suite shortcuts.

I wouldn't so I keep to markdown and minimize plugins where aplicable, if I need to run for the hills, I don't expect to lose much

And I'm pretty sure both will be forked and modified to run independently of Obsidian within a week of the theoretical enshittification.

  class SomeElement extends HTMLElement {
    constructor() {
      super();
    }

    someMethod(x) {
      this.innerHTML = `<h1>${x}</h1>`;
    }
  }

  // ignore registry stuff

  const customElement = document.getElementById('custom-element-id');

  customElement.someMethod(42);

Fine for x:string, but what about w:WebWorker?

If I haven't, then presumably I'll be satisfied with the inherited default behavior, which will probably look something like "<h1>[object Worker]</h1>".

If I care about this extremely contrived example case, in other words, I'll do something to handle it. If I don't, I won't. If I do, it's been easy for at least 25 years now; iirc .toString() was specified in ES3, which was published in March 2000.

Similarly, these references would be from the JS perspective a POJO with lots of seriously heavy implicit "render magic," so you can use them, as with any first-class Javascript value, as function arguments parallel to but a superset of what React does with its props. See the MDN documentation on Node.appendChild (and Node, Element, HTMLElement, etc) for more: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Node

If I want to represent the state of a worker thread in the UI, a problem I first recall solving over a weekend in 2016, the way I do it will end up closely resembling the "MVC pattern," with the Worker instance as "model," the DOM element structure as "view," and a "controller" that takes a Worker and returns an element tree. Even if I'm using React to build the UI - which I have also been mostly doing for about as long - I am still going to handle this translation with a library function, even if my component actually does accept a Worker as a prop, which it actually very likely will since that will enable me to easily dispatch effects and update the UI on changes of worker state. I might define that "business logic" function alongside the component which uses it, in the same module. But React or vanilla, I won't put that logic in the UI rendering code, unless it is trivial property mapping and no more (unlikely in this case, since any interesting worker thread state updates will arrive via message events requiring the parent to keep track in some way.)

Does that help clear up what I'm getting at?

    <MyComponent worker={worker} />

    this.innerHTML = `<my-component worker="${worker}">`

    this.innerHTML = `<my-component>`
    this.firstChild.worker = worker;

    el.worker = worker

   html`<my-component .worker=${worker}></my-component>`

But once I decide to cross the "no dependencies" line, using something like Preact + htm as a no-build solution would also take the most of the rest of the pain away, and solve many, many other problems Web Components have no solution and no planned solution for.

Tbh, I'm not sure there's a way for that. But why not just define a method in your target child component and pass the worker in there?

You can use properties (as opposed to attributes) as I demonstrated, and you can use methods like you suggest, but these are both verbose and limited, and add an extra "the component has been created but the props haven't been fully passed" state to the component you're writing. Imagine a component with maybe five different props, all of which are complex objects that need to be passed by property. That's a lot of boilerplate to work with.

You can set them declaratively with a template binding in most template systems.

https://plainvanillaweb.com/blog/articles/2024-10-07-needs-m... https://plainvanillaweb.com/blog/articles/2024-08-30-poor-ma...

I haven't tried signals yet, but I couldn't see why you could pass in an object with multiple values.

You're right, it is just a method call from a class. Nothing interesting or new. And that's exactly why I like it! I like me FE code as boring, unimpressive and as simple as possible.

All HTML elements are JavaScript objects that have properties. You can pass arbitrary data to custom elements via those properties.

Look at any modern HTML template system and you'll see the ability to pass data to properties declaratively.

You do also have access to properties, but only in Javascript — you can't for example write something like `<my-custom-component date="new Date(2024, 02, 04)">`. That means that if you need to pass around complex data types, you need to either manipulate the DOM objects directly, or you need to include some sort of templating abstraction that will handle the property/attribute problem for you.

This is my main criticism of web components. At the simplest levels, they're not useful — you could build this website very easily without them, they aren't providing a particularly meaningful abstraction at this level of complexity. But at the more complex levels, they're not sufficient by themselves — there's no state management concept, there's no templating, there's not even much reactivity, other than the stuff you could do with native JS event emitters.

As far as I can tell, the best use-case for web components is microfrontends, which is a pretty useful use-case (much better than iframes), but it's very niche. Apart from that, I really don't see why you wouldn't just write normal Javascript without worrying about web components at all.

You're holding web components to a higher standard here in expecting them to take arbitrary data in HTML when HTML itself doesn't support arbitrary data. Notably you can't assign arbitrary data to framework components from within HTML either, so how are web components any more limited?

The point of web components is that they create normal HTML elements. So it makes sense to consider what the value of them being normal HTML elements is. You can write them directly in your HTML source code, for example. But if you do that, you only get access to attributes and not to properties, and therefore everything needs to be strings. Alternatively, you can treat them as DOM nodes in Javascript, at which point you get access to properties and can use non-string values, but now you've got to deal with the DOM API, which is verbose and imperative, and makes declarative templating difficult.

Yes, we could compare them to components from other frameworks, but that's honestly an absurd comparison. They're simply trying to do different things. Frameworks aren't trying to create HTML elements. They're trying to reactively template the DOM. It's just a completely different goal altogether. The comparison doesn't make sense.

Here's a lit-html template that sets a property:

    html`<my-element .someProp=${x}></my-element>`

That the element may use a library for its implementation is basically irrelevant.

The goal of web components is to enable interoperable, encapsulated, reusable components, where how they're built is an implementation detail.

You can use a web component that used lit-html without knowing anything about lit-html, it even that the component uses it.

Why bother when I can just write everything in a single framework?

- write a simple web service in C# on top of ASP.NET MVC v1

- build a web frontend on top of it using Prototype.js (or jQuery) and a library of components like ExtJS