New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos
-
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
Joking aside, for me the ultimate test is whether you would tolerate in a physical world something you are forced to tolerate in a virtual world.
I willingly read anthologies (bunch of short stories in one book).
-
@error said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@topspin said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@blek said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
Fuck yeah, make web 1.0 again!
This, but unironically!
Obligatory http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
-
@pie_flavor said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
dashing outlaws
-
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
Are you one of those "government so small you can drown it in a bathtub" proponents?
-
@Zenith said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@error said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
I remember how Jeff fought tooth and nail to avoid adding a pagination option. He had some way of turning every feature request and bug report into an ideological debate.
Jeff's attitude is one of the reasons why we will end up serving robots instead of the other way around.
Would you rather serve robots or Jeff?
-
@The_Quiet_One said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
I like this bill and hope it passes even if I am not living in the USA.
I fucking hate infini-scroll sites and auto-play-next videos.
I fucking hate listening to Justin Bieber songs. I'm not going to outlaw things I hate, though. Because I'm not a fucking idiot.
You are conceptually correct, but outlawing infini-scroll and Justin Bieber would obviously be for the greater good.
-
@Zerosquare said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
Won't anybody think of
the children@Tsaukpaetra? Every time he's upvoted every single post, more posts appear, and he has to start again.I have been summoned, and so I appear!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
and so I appear
Vote counts say otherwise.
-
@topspin said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@Zenith said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@error said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
I remember how Jeff fought tooth and nail to avoid adding a pagination option. He had some way of turning every feature request and bug report into an ideological debate.
Jeff's attitude is one of the reasons why we will end up serving robots instead of the other way around.
Would you rather serve robots or Jeff?
What's the difference?
public static void JeffMain (System.String[] Array_Arguments) { while (true) { System.Console.Write("Enter Request: "); System.String String_Feature = System.Console.ReadLine(); System.Console.WriteLine(System.String.Format("You don't need {0}.", new System.Object[]{String_Feature})); } }
-
@Gąska said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@Tsaukpaetra said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
and so I appear
Vote counts say otherwise.
Appearance does not preclude a particular path taken.
-
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
There are people who have addictive personality (some of which is genetic which explains why some people are not affected), are you saying that just because you are not affected they should not be protected from the abuse?
None of which will be helped by this bill. If your sole argument is people with addictive personalities, than this bill does nothing for them. As they can simply disable the "feature". Which, is what someone who is addicted will do.
I don't mind autoplay when you consciously choose a playlist, what I am talking about is everything becoming a playlist which you have to make an effort to cancel out of every time you play / read something.
No more effort than closing the tab, which is what I do when I am done watching the video anyway.
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
So there is no need to ban assault weapons
Correct.
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
Hey if you want to binge-watch something be my guest and make yourself a playlist, but don't force that shit on everyone.
Nothing has been forced on anyone. You willingly choose to go to that site. If it is really such an issue, don't go to that site.
-
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
I have enough self-control not to social media myself to death.
Another newsflash -- not everything is about you.
There are people who have addictive personality (some of which is genetic which explains why some people are not affected), are you saying that just because you are not affected they should not be protected from the abuse?
I believe removing auto-play and infinite scrolling is not even going to have much of a difference in how those with tendencies to be obsessed with digital media will behave. There's going to be a "Next Video" button, or a "Next Page" button, which they'll simply habitually click on instead. Which is why, again, if you need to solve the problem, that's what therapists are for.
I'm not forced to tolerate it. I often listen to music on YouTube on a playlist.
I don't mind autoplay when you consciously choose a playlist, what I am talking about is everything becoming a playlist which you have to make an effort to cancel out of every time you play / read something.
How do you define the difference in a codified law?
you need to combat that with therapy and self-control, not forcing everyone to be babied into moderating it because some people have those problems.
So there is no need to ban assault weapons just because some people "have those problems" which they are most likely not aware of and need therapy which they won't seek and which even if they do may or may not stop them from killing others using said weapons but God forbid someone stopped you from hunting your game or doing target practice using your AR-15. Got it.
Yes, last I heard autoscrolling and auto-play killed more people than all mass-shootings combined. You're going to need to take over the great plains to collect the straw you need to build up these arguments.
@Dragoon said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
I willingly read anthologies (bunch of short stories in one book).
Hey if you want to binge-watch something be my guest and make yourself a playlist, but don't force that shit on everyone.
Nobody's forcing anything on anyone. Did you know some people don't even go to YouTube or Facebook?
-
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
There are people who have addictive personality (some of which is genetic which explains why some people are not affected), are you saying that just because you are not affected they should not be protected from the abuse?
Ban everything loud because some people have anxiety.
-
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
So there is no need to ban assault weapons just because some people "have those problems" which they are most likely not aware of and need therapy which they won't seek and which even if they do may or may not stop them from killing others using said weapons but God forbid someone stopped you from hunting your game or doing target practice using your AR-15. Got it.
Go see how Britain's doing on that front. File down your kitchen knives because some people have those problems and stab people with them.
-
@pie_flavor said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
File down your kitchen knives because some people have those problems and stab people with them.
We don't do that, you know. There might be some people online who claim that we do, but it's just a line of bullshit that they're pushing.
-
Today's comics are coincidentally topical...
-
@JBert huh.
-
@Gąska The alt-text doesn't come through for me in this one-box, and that was the most topical part.
-
@JBert you're addicted to alt-texts.
-
@Gąska I can stop any time I want to!
-
@JBert said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
Today's comics are coincidentally topical...
Someone made a comic about @Tsaukpaetra and his bitches?!
-
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
What if you read a book in the library, and the next book immediately jumped into your hands as soon as you finished with the first one?
Am I still able to either put the book down or leave the library? Yes? OK, then so what?
-
@The_Quiet_One said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
I don't think it's physically possible to accomplish a greater strawman argument. I think you've just found the universal plank constant for maximum possible strawman per volume before collapsing into a black hole.
I think you just won August with this comment. Well done.
-
@pie_flavor said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
There are people who have addictive personality (some of which is genetic which explains why some people are not affected), are you saying that just because you are not affected they should not be protected from the abuse?
Ban
everything loud because somepeoplehave anxiety.Yes, please.
-
@Zerosquare said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@JBert said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
Today's comics are coincidentally topical...
Someone made a comic about @Tsaukpaetra and his bitches?!
Bitches get scritches!
-
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@loopback0 said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
Am I still able to either put the book down or leave the library? Yes? OK, then so what?
Yes you are, but wouldn't having to put down the unwanted book in addition to the one you read get old fast?
Not as fast as I could leave.
A website auto-playing one video after I've already watched one is basically a non-issue.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
I don't think it's physically possible to accomplish a greater strawman argument.
He's still fucking trying though.
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
So if I willingly chose to go through a dark alley I also consented to be raped, mugged or killed? If being raped, mugged or killed is such an issue just don't go outside?
-
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@Dragoon said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
None of which will be helped by this bill. If your sole argument is people with addictive personalities, than this bill does nothing for them. As they can simply disable the "feature". Which, is what someone who is addicted will do.
I guess you meant to say "Which, is what someone who is addicted will NOT do." because that's the only way your sentence would make any sense.
No more effort than closing the tab, which is what I do when I am done watching the video anyway.
Closing the tab and then going to the same site to watch something else I actually want to watch? How convenient.
Correct.
Nope.
Nothing has been forced on anyone. You willingly choose to go to that site. If it is really such an issue, don't go to that site.
So if I willingly chose to go through a dark alley I also consented to be raped, mugged or killed? If being raped, mugged or killed is such an issue just don't go outside?
If an alcoholic chooses to go into a liquor store, did he consent to fall off the wagon, or should we reestablish prohibition?
@The_Quiet_One said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
I believe removing auto-play and infinite scrolling is not even going to have much of a difference in how those with tendencies to be obsessed with digital media will behave. There's going to be a "Next Video" button, or a "Next Page" button, which they'll simply habitually click on instead.
So you are saying there is no difference between a conscious action to continue indulging in something (a click) and no action needed at all?
Last I heard, addicts make conscious actions all the time. Alcoholics need to pour themselves another drink, drug addicts need to go out to buy more drugs, and so on.
How do you define the difference in a codified law?
I am not a lawyer but let me try -- "Web sites may offer a convenience for the users for consuming more than a single unit of content (a unit being a news article, a song, a podcast, or a video) by providing a link to a newsfeed and the ability to create playlists for multimedia content such as songs, podcasts or videos. Web sites must not default to showing more than a single unit of content to a user unless said user has made a conscious choice by selecting optional newsfeed / playlist feature."
And, as said before, those who have obsessive tendencies will either enable such features or simply mindlessly click-click-click. This law accomplishes nothing.
Nobody's forcing anything on anyone. Did you know some people don't even go to YouTube or Facebook?
By that logic, the advertisers are not forcing ads on you. Simply don't use Internet and everything's fine.
Again, by that logic, nobody's forcing you to drink. Simply don't enter a liquor store or order a drink at the restaurant and everything is fine.
@pie_flavor said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
Go see how Britain's doing on that front. File down your kitchen knives because some people have those problems and stab people with them.
Good job on comparing knife and AR-15 capacity for mayhem. That's not even apples to oranges, it's pineapples to cannonballs comparison.
Did you forget that you compared people mass-killing with AR-15s to people watching too many YouTube videos? That's a harmonica to koala bear comparison.
-
@Gąska said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act
I see what they did there - but "Social Platforms" would make for a much better acronym.
Alternatively, you could add Surveillance and Security at the end.
-
@BernieTheBernie Technology Surveillance and Security? IoT thread is
-
@levicki
So, other than features that didn't exist in old C# versions (static includes and named format arguments), the same exact code is shit because of TYPING STYLE?
I don't think we can be friends anymore.
-
@Zenith said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
didn't exist in old C# versions (static includes and named format arguments)
I can sort of understand that. But what is this?
new System.Object[]{String_Feature}
-
@Applied-Mediocrity the WriteLine overload that instead of varargs, takes an array of objects (
System.Object
is an alias forobject
, or maybe it's the other way around). That's how you write creating new array if you're a decompiler.
-
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@loopback0 said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
Not as fast as I could leave.
And what if there was magic that teleported books one after another into your hands during the time it took you to leave?
Sounds like it'd be impressive to witness.
-
@Gąska Yeah, no, it's passed to
Format
, which has a proper overload (and two others before you'd need anobject[]
). If I had to nitpick - and obviously I do - even the use ofFormat
can be contested for the task at hand. It's not a universal Jeffing API, YAGNI.
-
@Zenith said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@levicki
So, other than features that didn't exist in old C# versions (static includes and named format arguments), the same exact code is shit because of TYPING STYLE?
I don't think we can be friends anymore.
@levicki-complains-about-people-complaining-about-formatting thread is .
-
@Applied-Mediocrity @Gaska was right except what function it was being passed to. The way you used to declare an array if you knew the values beforehand was:
new type[]{1,...,n};
I don't particularly like the variable pattern when used with regular parameters. That's why in my library I have a DeclareArray() function that does it without the weird syntax. Yes, there is a miniscule amount of overhead from using a function, but every stone on that front has been cast from not even a glass house but a tissue paper house.
Anyway, the point here was that Jeff rejects all requests with "you don't need..." just like his fellow travelers on StackOverflow. Fuck that attitude.
-
Ok, screw that. Here's a multiple-choice question. Which is the right bit to put in a Speed-up loop, given the chance?
A)
System.Console.WriteLine(System.String.Format("You don't need {0}.", new System.Object[]{String_Feature}));
B)System.Console.WriteLine(System.String.Format("You don't need {0}.", String_Feature));
C)System.Console.WriteLine("You don't need " + String_Feature + ".");
E)return Boolean.Parse("FILE_NOT_FOUND");
-
@Applied-Mediocrity
You don't need a Speed-up loop.
-
@loopback0 There's a ReadLine() that it's waiting on before printing the response so any speed difference would be imperceptible. I did see a study comparing StringBuilder, Format(), and concatenation a long time ago and I think the conclusion was that concatenation was actually faster for smaller strings even in a loop.
Oh, and I did look up the documentation, WriteLine() has its own formatting overload that I forgot about. However, I expect WriteLine(string) is the default, so WriteLine(string,object[]) should call Format() internally, which logically means I have not introduced any additional overhead by calling the "wrong" overload.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
I'm not forced to tolerate it. I often listen to music on YouTube on a playlist. Having to hit "play" on each track would be more infuriating for me. And, once again, if you want to talk about the physical world, TV show marathons and weekend-long countdown lists on radio stations have been around for decades. Last I saw nobody was dropping dead because of that.
That made me think of the occasion (in 1989, if memory serves, or possibly the first half of 1990) that WGBH, the PBS station in Boston (Massachusetts, not Lincolnshire), decided that it was a good time to run all the episodes of Fawlty Towers back to back over a weekend. The late Mrs Cynic and I discovered that there are(1) limits to our respective abilities to watch John Cleese play Basil Fawlty in continuous bursts, and that those limits are shorter than the full running time of the whole series.
(1) OK, yes, in her case, were.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
And, as said before, those who have obsessive tendencies will either enable such features or simply mindlessly click-click-click.
This.
-
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
No, main was because of unnecessary usage of
Format
andnew
. Also, why punish yourself by typingSystem.
in front of everything instead of writingusing System;
? Are you a masochist? Or are you punishing the readers in which case you are sadist?We're discussing code that emulates Jeff.
-
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
The difference is in consent vs lack of consent. Doing something without your consent is not convenient -- it's rude because they are not doing it to benefit you but themselves (i.e. site to get more clicks, restaurant to sell more drinks). If you can't grasp that you are truly fucked.
Okay, let's get back on the crux of the issue. We aren't debating whether something is rude or not. That's irrelevant. We're debating whether it should be illegal.
@The_Quiet_One said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
Did you forget that you compared people mass-killing with AR-15s to people watching too many YouTube videos?
That's totally not what I meant -- you said "you need to combat that with therapy and self-control", I just pointed out that it didn't work for guns so far and that's why most civilized countries have outlawed them. Sure, there are numerous knife incidents in the UK but when you remove one big problem (such as guns), the next problem (such as knives) gets more attention -- that doesn't mean that banning guns didn't accomplish anything.
One problem involves people getting killed in violence while another is regulating something that results in a mild annoyance. You're the type who appreciates pics like this unironically, aren't you?
@Applied-Mediocrity said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
Which is the right bit to put in a Speed-up loop, given the chance?
D
I can't believe that you lot are against a law that would ban infini-scroll and autoplay, but you are for a law that would force car manufacturers to detect babies left in cars. In one case you don't want government to babysit people and in the other you do. Such hypocrisy .
You're trying to equate a problem that results in unhealthy habits to a problem that results in babies roasting inside cars. Get a grip.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
You're trying to equate a problem that results in unhealthy habits to a problem that results in babies roasting inside cars. Get a grip.
"Getting a grip" is something that has never seemed to be a possibility. (Whether you interpret that to mean for @levicki or for these boards in general is up to you.)
-
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@The_Quiet_One said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
You're trying to equate a problem that results in unhealthy habits to a problem that results in babies roasting inside cars. Get a grip.
Is overworking yourself to the point where you forget a baby in your car a healthy habit?
If it is, I don't see why you would want to regulate that.
The problem is that you don't want to regulate being overworked (a cause) -- you want to regulate forgetfulness (a symptom of being overworked and under stress).
Everyone gets stressed from time to time. It's a part of life. It doesn't even have to be your job, either. Maybe it's a death in the family, an abusive mother-in-law, your sick cat, an illness, whether temporary or permanent. You can't regulate those things.
In my book that's definitely an order of magnitude more silly than trying to regulate unhealthy habits, not to mention that I am not even advocating regulation of unhealthy habits themselves -- I don't want to prevent alcoholic from getting a drink at the restaurant if he wants it, I am trying to prevent the capitalist bastard of a restaurant owner from nudging him to have more than what he initially wanted.
There's already regulations for that. If a restaurant is responsible for causing someone to become drunk to the point of being a danger to himself or others, that restaurant can lose their liquor license. And that's even if the bartender didn't nudge the customer at all. It's the bartender's responsibility to cut him off.
But that's alcohol. A potentially dangerous drug. Binge watching videos or news articles is barely comparable to that, and wasting government resources on regulating that is pointless.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
But that's alcohol. A potentially dangerous drug. Binge watching videos or news articles is barely comparable to that, and wasting government resources on regulating that is pointless.
Have you read the comments on YouTube and news sites? They're not much different from the ramblings of drunk people.
-
@Zerosquare said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
Have you read the comments on YouTube and news sites? They're not much different from the ramblings of drunk people.
Many of those comments probably are the ramblings of the drunk (or otherwise high).
-
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@Zenith said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
the same exact code is shit because of TYPING STYLE?
No, main was because of unnecessary usage of Format and new. Also, why punish yourself by typing System. in front of everything instead of writing using System;? Are you a masochist? Or are you punishing the readers in which case you are sadist?
That doesn't make it shit code. You understood what I was doing with minimal effort. And then wrote functionally identical code. I guess I could've reduced it to two lines by passing ReadLine() into WriteLine() instead of an intermediary variable but that'd handicap people using debuggers.
Reasons that I do fully qualified types:
- explicit - you know exactly what is called even without an IDE
- consistency - all types are declared the same way and colored the same way
- safety/maintainability - no namespace collisions
- simplicity - reminder not to nest types ten layers deep; I developed an entire ecosystem that only goes four layers down
Sure, it induces seizures in style Nazis, but also produces better quality code every time so fuck them.
@levicki said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
@Zenith said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
I don't think we can be friends anymore.
Didn't know we were friends -- as someone who doesn't have many friends I appreciate the thought
That was sort of tongue in cheek. I thought we were on the same side in the struggle against style Nazis so that threw me for a loop.
-
@Zenith said in New bill would ban auto-scrolling and auto-play videos:
That doesn't make it shit code.
Ok, let's try once more, before I stop giving a quartershit, because I really shouldn't have given any from the very beginning.
Why did you allocate a new array of objects just to put a single element in it when there is a
Format
overload that takes a single object parameter?It's a concept so goddamn 101 that I'm afraid either I'm missing something obvious (such as maybe Jeff has taken over your body in your sleep; Jeff, come out, it's over!) or something's really fucked up in Denmark.