[HN Gopher] A Motherfucking Website
___________________________________________________________________
A Motherfucking Website
Author : tzury
Score : 80 points
Date : 2024-07-13 19:18 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (motherfuckingwebsite.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (motherfuckingwebsite.com)
| gooseyman wrote:
| Obligatory v2 http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
| boerseth wrote:
| The original looks great on mobile, but for desktops the above
| improvements are quite sensible as a minimum.
| drewg123 wrote:
| How is it an improvement? It wastes tons of whitespace. The
| first one is far better.
| neilv wrote:
| It doesn't respect the body text size set in the browser.
| F-word that f-wording site.
| joshmanders wrote:
| I registered the domain modernfuckingwebsite.com a few years
| ago with the intent of building the evolution of this where you
| don't forego niceties because someone hates JavaScript.
|
| I haven't built it yet because all the frontend frameworks suck
| still.
|
| Maybe Astro? I don't know yet. I continue to renew the domain
| in hopes that something will come along.
| chuckadams wrote:
| Never launching the site because of being stuck in the
| interminable analysis paralysis of choosing a framework kind
| of says it all.
| zzo38computer wrote:
| It is worse. If I disable CSS then it is better. The defaults
| are not trash, but the desired fonts, colours, etc should be
| set up by the user so that the author does not need to know
| what size is appropriate for that user and for that user's
| computer and display (or if the user wishes to make a print
| out, etc).
| jug wrote:
| This one completely misses the point? At this point, why
| doesn't it use a full fledged CSS framework?
| voltaireodactyl wrote:
| Truly one of the greatest pieces of art on the internet.
| boredtofears wrote:
| Something about the vulgarity and brashness of the tone of this
| site just strikes me as so mid 2010's. Can't say it's aged
| particularly well.
| chambored wrote:
| I appreciate the concept here, but I agree with your sentiment.
| It's reminiscent of the crude as a personality type that was
| almost hipster popular.
| skobes wrote:
| It has Maddox vibes.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maddox_(writer)
| klyrs wrote:
| I dunno about you, but I was born in the 1980s and my dad
| cussed like a sailor, loved George Carlin, etc. I'd say that
| the language has a timeless quality.
| boredtofears wrote:
| I don't know if there is such thing as "tasteful" use of
| vulgarity but Carlin did a lot better job than this does at
| using vulgarity to emphasize parts of his standup. This
| website just uses it as the only adjective which completely
| diminishes its emphasis and weight.
| exabrial wrote:
| There are very very very few, about 1 in 10000, well executed
| Javascript frontends. Just stop using it for _fkin everything_.
|
| I can't even file a damn claim with my insurance on StateFarm.com
| because some dev had to itch some javacraptasic urge.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| See also: Brutalist Web Design. https://brutalist-web.design
| simonsarris wrote:
| I think this site epitomizes what I don't like about the
| internet. There's no whimsy, no sense of artistry or creativity
| or mystery or playfulness. You have a canvas to do anything and
| you choose to do nothing.
|
| It acknowledges that the problem space is difficult. Making
| something truly delightful is no small task -- and it responds by
| giving up. The site is a (forceful) shrug.
| Exuma wrote:
| Im with ya. The OP link is so painfully predictable and 1
| dimensional. Its like people are unoriginal, which isn't so
| bad, but simultaneously dont possess the awareness to realize
| theyre unoriginal..... so to those who are not unoriginal its
| all so very tiresome. Oh wow you used swearing to make your
| point... I wonder how long it took for you to come up with
| that. I myself love the very much alive-and-dynamic interwebz.
| I love the creativity. I love the weird. I love javascript. I
| love the 9000 ways to do things because it always works out in
| the end and sorts itself out. There's ebbs and flows just like
| every other thing in life, where things evolve in phases
| lytedev wrote:
| The main thing I like about the Internet is the exchange of
| information. Many sites make this awfully difficult or insane
| (download tens of megabytes to read a few dozen bytes).
|
| There is absolutely the side of the internet you're talking
| about, regarding making things pretty, but it's secondary in my
| opinion.
| lukan wrote:
| Art and style is information. You (and I) just have a
| preference for factual information that can be transmitted
| via concise text and numbers and no bloat.
| mym1990 wrote:
| Agreed! This website is akin to saying "this is fucking chicken
| and broccoli and eat it every single day because it's food and
| nutrients and you don't need anything else". Well you know
| what, sometimes I like ramen or curry or a Twinkie or whatever.
| roncesvalles wrote:
| I'm not sure if you read it till the end but I thought this
| observation was pretty astute.
|
| >Websites aren't broken by default, they are functional, high-
| performing, and accessible. You break them.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > Websites aren't broken by default, they are functional, high-
| performing, and accessible. You break them.
|
| This is the TLDR message of the site. Generally, the more code
| you write, the worse web pages get.
| m463 wrote:
| the non-minimal google analytics part of the page:
| <!-- yes, I know...wanna fight about it? --> <script>
| (function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||
| function(){ ...
| datameta wrote:
| codegolfing in a text-only web page is next level irony
| wyum wrote:
| This is the standard Google analytics snippet. It's probably
| automatically minified, maybe code-golfed. In any case, the
| author of the page did not also write this snippet.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| You/he should see how my uBlock Origin, NoScript, and Privacy
| Badger liked this ;)
| HenryBemis wrote:
| Quote in the end is by Dieter Rams
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Dieter-Rams-Little-Design-Possible/dp...
| (link doesn't contain affiliate)
| arbuge wrote:
| At least needs some margins...
| bigboy12 wrote:
| Are you allowed to say motherfucker on the internet?
| theginger wrote:
| No It just comes out as stars
| js2 wrote:
| Is this URL the most frequently dead'ed submission to HN?
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=motherfuckingwebsite....
|
| The 2013 submission survived:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6791297
| lukan wrote:
| I would suspect it is at least partly because of a filter that
| triggers with the f word. Only if someone vouches for it, it
| has a chance. Or someone really hates that site. I think it is
| not deep enough to warrant so much emotion.
| ykonstant wrote:
| I am making a personal webpage based on those examples. The
| problem is that I want to embed mathematical formulas, so it
| cannot be Javascript free; however, I think I am doing a good job
| minimizing dependencies. My goal is to put some educational and
| research materials directly on the web, like this:
| https://ykonstant1.github.io/power-draft.html
|
| I think that my background is a little too yellow, though.
| enriquto wrote:
| Great site!
|
| If you want to improve its looks, you can just remove all the
| css styling.
|
| Also, since you are using mathjax, it's better to use the
| dollar signs as in LaTeX, and not all these ugly tags with
| classes. As a rule of thumb, going from latex to html involves
| little more than replacing empty lines by <p>, \sections by
| <h2>, and \includegraphics by <img>.
| ben_w wrote:
| I can just about, with surprising difficulty, select the text
| of those mathematical formulae; but if I copy them to the
| clipboard, I get only blank lines.
|
| Are you sure pre-rendering images of the formulae wouldn't be
| just as effective?
| scythmic_waves wrote:
| Could you generate MathML server side to avoid JS?
| zzo38computer wrote:
| They are right. It is good. They call it satire, but still I
| think the stuff they mention is right; yes it should look like
| this and shouldn't need pictures and CSS and whatever else they
| add too much. Also, it works with "http:" and with "https:", so
| that is also good. Another benefit is that I do not have to
| override or disable the CSS to make it even partially good,
| because it does not have CSS. It works how it is, unlike most.
|
| However:
|
| - The <meta charset> command should not be needed, if the text is
| only ASCII anyways.
|
| - The <meta name="viewport"> command should not be needed, if
| they use the simple HTML as this anyways (without CSS); the
| client should ought to set it automatically according to the
| user-defined window size.
|
| - They even have a <script> command (with Google Analytics),
| which also should not be needed. They have a comment if you wanna
| fight about it. (I have scripts disabled.)
| cortesoft wrote:
| > yes it should look like this and shouldn't need pictures and
| CSS and whatever else it might need
|
| Isn't this entirely dependent on what the purpose of the
| website is? If i am visiting a website to learn about different
| types of flowers, for example, I sure hope there are some
| pictures of flowers on it.
| zzo38computer wrote:
| Yes, if you are trying to view pictures of flowers, then you
| are right. They should not add the pictures merely for
| decorations, but if you want to view a document explaining
| flowers then it is helpful to include the pictures of the
| flowers being described. (Similar thing is valid for other
| kind of documents that might have pictures of whatever is
| being described, but many documents should not need as many
| pictures as they too often have.)
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| I love it. It is everything I have ever wanted to say.
|
| You can probably see that website on Lynx or Dillo and it will
| look the same.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| I'd written my own variant on this theme (based on the original
| and the Better Motherfucking Website), which applies _some_ but
| generally _minimal_ styling (14 CSS rules) to achieve a balance
| of minimalism, legibility, and functionality:
|
| <https://www.theregister.com/2018/07/12/broadcom_ca_technolog...>
|
| (Let me know if you're having issues reading that, I myself get a
| message "Referred from Pen Edward Morbius's motherfucking
| website" viewing under Firefox.)
|
| What most strikes me is that _with ever so slightly more advanced
| browser defaults_ the Web could be ever so much more readable.
| What I 'd like to see is a standard set of default page layouts
| ("article", "overview", "lighttable", "catalogue", "discussion",
| say) along with a few more primitive elements (notes, equations,
| interactive tables with some basic spreadsheet functionality,[1]
| and threaded discussions most principally) which could address a
| huge chunk of what's now highly-styled, and often unreadable, Web
| designs.
|
| The one thing I find not entirely universally suitable from my
| design is that the off-white / off-black background/text are not
| ideal for e-ink devices, though the overall effect remains
| _generally_ readable.
|
| Gwern's own website (<https://gwern.net/>) strikes me as one of
| the absolute best highly-styled websites, and absolutely stands
| out amongst that class.
|
| ________________________________
|
| Notes:
|
| 1. The ability to sort by specific columns, summarize
| quantitative columns by total and some univariate statistics
| (min, max, mean, median, mode, standard deviation), principally.
| Perhaps the ability to drive a graph based on selected columns as
| well.
| viraptor wrote:
| Here's a list of most follow-ups:
| https://github.com/lyoshenka/awesome-motherfucking-website
|
| My favourite is https://evenbettermotherfucking.website/ but I'm
| a sucker for actually nice and readable typography.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-13 23:00 UTC)