Threads for atharva

    1. 13

      My impression of this post is not positive.

      First of all, the page layout on my 15” laptop screen, plus Firefox, looks terrible. On top of that, the typography of the post itself is nothing to write home about. Beautiful typography has this universal quality: it just looks good to most eyes, and this page? This page is not beautiful.

      Second, I think it is patently untrue to claim that paid fonts automatically make you a better typographer. For evidence, see the plethora of quality open source fonts.

      Third, I am not convinced about the value of the suggested point sizes. Personally, I prefer larger point sizes in my text, whenever I can afford it, but I’m not going to run around claiming that I have found the golden range of point sizes. If you want to make that claim, I do think you have to back it up with evidence; something that is sorely missing in modern typography circles.

      Page margins fall in a similar boat to my complaints about claims regarding ideal point sizes. Far more egregious is the fact that the page margins for this page on my 15” laptop screen are atrocious. Why is the body text laid out off-center, all the way to the right?

      Overall: all the bells in my head ring “shilling!”.

      This is the first post I will flag on lobste.rs (I’m a new user), with “off-topic”, for being low quality, and an ad. I’m willing to have my changed about this post, and I guess a single flag means nothing anyway, right?

      1. 4

        I’m not commenting on your evaluation of the book, but I can answer one of your questions:

        Why is the body text laid out off-center, all the way to the right?

        To make room for notes in the left margin. This page has two such notes: the first one begins “There are 72 points to an inch.” I can see why you thought the body text was off-center, though: if you scroll to a part of the page without margin notes, there is no visual indication of why the left margin is empty.

      2. 2

        I do not think he means to say that the rules here are universal silver bullets. If you want true nuance about font sizes and open source fonts, it’s covered in the book and acknowledged.

        What this article is a bunch of thumb rules for laypeople/non-designers to get their typography looking better than most defaults provided by typesetting software. It is very hand-wavey and generalizing on purpose, to allow people to get up and running with significantly improved typography very quickly.

        As for your claim for it looking terrible, it is clearly subjective, as on my 15” laptop screen, plus Firefox, I think it looks very beautiful.

    2. 4

      Hey OP, just mentioning that KDE does come with Google Drive integration out of the box, so you don’t have to rely on a third party.

      1. 2

        Hi :) Thanks, that was a really great hint! I found this: https://community.kde.org/KIO_GDrive Integration in Dolphin works great. It let’s you browse files like fuse would. Exactly what I need!

    3. 9

      While I agree with all that the author has said about the walled garden-ness of platforms like slack, I do think emails are highly unsuitable for having a proper discussion and conversation.

      The neomutt image perfectly demonstrates it, as you can only see the subject line and the names of the responders without being able to scan through all the replies at once to see what’s going on. Most email clients that I know of do not handle discussions like this very well.

      A better alternative would be to support the matrix standard that promises federation while giving modern features, rather than wrestling with email to make it work for you.

      1. 18

        For the past 20 years there has been countless posts published on the internet saying X is best for Y and it boggles my mind that so many intelligent engineers didn’t yet conclusively conclude that such binary statements are useless. Because the only true comment here is “it depends”.

        I’ve seen fantastic discussions on a classic forum system. I’ve seen brilliant discussions in an xmpp group chat. I had some of my best discussions through ICQ, Facebook comments, WhatsApp, Viber, Twitter. I had very efficient discussions via email as well.

        I’d say, don’t fight the horse. Ride it.

        1. 6

          Ride it.

          Which one? :P

          1. 6

            The only four APIs that unite all chat systems are :

            And all of them require supporting all of the platforms up front.

            I wish everyone coming up with a new protocol to take a deep thought on whether it could not have been done with the existing ones out there before to deploying it for everyone:

            • Could matrix not pick IRC or Signal protocol for client-server instead of yet-another-one?
            • Can the mumble wire protocol be upgraded to include the double ratchet so that other chat system use it?
            • Is SIP impossible to get running in a simple and secure (SRTP + ZRTP) way instead of “reinventing the wheel” by plugging a voice system to a chat app?
            • Is the Icecast protocol a bad building block for video chat?
            • Is Chat over IMAP such a bad idea?

            For instance, Jitsi uses XMPP (after using SIP in the past), yet I doubt it is possible to use a plain XMPP client to join a conversation (jicofo on the way).

            1. 7

              I was tangentially involved in the efforts to unite instant-messaging systems starting around 1998. (I ended up co-building iChat, which supported two of them.)

              The IETF had a working group that got into pathological bikeshedding and eventually churned out some turgid specs describing what they’d like such a system to do, without actually designing anything.

              Meanwhile Jeremie Miller hacked together Jabber, which basically worked despite the near-fatal flaw of using XML.

              Finally it turned out none of the instant-message providers would let their systems interoperate with the others, because it would hurt the revenue from their precious walled gardens and expose their precious social graphs.

              The only reason federated protocols like SMTP and HTTP succeeded is because they emerged before Big Social got a stranglehold. The fully open communications channels of the future will be P2P, or nothing.

              1. 2

                P2P, or nothing

                But P2P opens a big privacy can of worms. I don’t want everyone I’m chatting with to directly get my home/mobile IP addresses, and “everyone who cares about location privacy must use proxies/tunnels” is kind of a crap solution.

              2. 2

                future will be P2P, or nothing So not only End-to-End encryption, but also Peer-to-Peer at the network level? That requires settling the chat protocol with the network unfortunately, but https://tox.chat did it!

                It uses strong (NaCl/libsodium) crypto, decouples identity verification from encryption (so that you can exchange the raw keys or use a nameserver of any kind), and is peer-to-peer including for video. And have a large range of clients around.

                iChat, the IETF, XMPP, walled-garden, social graphs

                Thank you for sharing that piece of history of what has become modern messaging!

            2. 2

              In case anyone have links toward pages from these new messaging protocol makers, which explain how the previous protocol were limited and why they did not want to upgrade it, I am deeply interested! \o

      2. 15

        A better alternative would be to support the matrix standard that promises federation while giving modern features, rather than wrestling with email to make it work for you.

        Matrix currently still seems to be a bit too instant and online for me. One of the things I value about Email discussions is that you can take your time, writing your messages offline and sending them all at once if you don’t have a connection right now. Matrix, that mainly seems to be implemented via Riot often takes too long to start, longer to load, there’s no threading, and I don’t feel too comfortable when writing (compared to my Email setup using Emacs, where I get the full screen and can easily quote whatever paragraph, sentence or work I’m responding to). It’s ok (but still has to be improved) for regular discussions with friends and the like, but that’s still going to take a while.

        1. 5

          One of the things I value about Email discussions is that you can take your time, writing your messages offline and sending them all at once if you don’t have a connection right now.

          This is the killer feature for me. I do most of my work offline and only go online to download new references, get and send emails, and waste time.

      3. 2

        Most email clients that I know of do not handle discussions like this very well

        Yes, but I would argue this is an implementation problem. The benefit of mail is, you can set this up for all at once. If you have a problem with the github UI you can add a plugin for better view or use the API. If you later have the same problem with the gitlab UI your github config doesn’t work because the interface is different. On mail you can set this up for all projects.

        I know most MUAs are horrible at this, but newer protocols have the same problem.