My Chrome still has a radio button (admittedly not a checkbox...) that will disable javascript on all sites.
There's a distinction to be made between content sites and application sites. It's really just too much work to try to make an application fall back to plain HTML, but for a content-centered site, like a blog, a news site, etc, it's not that hard to do things right and not require JS.
In this case, the site owner is deliberately sabotaging non-JavaScript users in order to get them to run ad-tracking and analytics. There isn't actually a good-faith reason to require JavaScript here.
The site owner profits from showing ads. There's little business reason for them to show ad-less pages to users. What does good faith have to do with it? They're not assuming you'll hack them or steal their content, it's a matter of business.
> If you cripple your browser some websites will break.
A browser which doesn't implement JavaScript is not crippled; it is 100% functional. A web page which requires JavaScript is crippled, because JavaScript is not required in order to display text and images.
Yes you can, actually. It's just more work to set it up properly but you absolutely can track user easily server side and you can serve ads without JS just fine.
Isn't reader mode effectively an adblocker and no-javascript mode ? That will parse the html and return only what it detects as the divs you want to read ?
It probably is not “for no reason” – the reason is that the page contains advertising and tracking scripts. The page owner is even willing to lie (pretending that JS is necessary is a flat-out lie if the page works fine without any JS features) so that users enable JS and run those.
Less than 2% of all web users have javascript turned off. Some say it's less than 1% and it's mostly people who understand the consequences of doing so.
Turning off the native component of anything always has consequences for those tinkering under the hood and the vast majority of those visiting that site don't tinker under the hood.
As the owner of a web dev company, I sometimes consider ignoring the "must work even without javascript" mantra. I haven't yet but there are times.
As mentioned in the article and countless times on HN:
Many people in Silicon Valley are biased against Lyft because they think that ride-sharing will be a winner-takes-all market. They are probably wrong. Once a ride-sharing company gets to a certain level of reliability and waiting times are short enough, there is little benefit to using one service over another. Uber and Lyft will both be able to claim a lead in lots of cities, and both will be around for a while.
Furthermore, if you live in a city with both, it's not uncommon to talk with drivers who work for both services.
I will also add that the need for expansion has toned down the quirkiness of Lyft from when they first out a few years back. The giant furry mustache was replaced. No more fist bumps. And the drivers I encounter are generally less talkative and charismatic. That's not meant to criticize the company, but AFAIC, there is just a lot less separating the two companies.
So playing it slow and sane might be second in the long run, but if they keep expanding I don't see them not eating into Uber's market and climbing their way up. Well, unless of course Uber's investment into driverless cars is able to come to fruition within our lifetime.
I have no idea what the situation is like in the rest of the country, but Lyft seems to do pretty well in Chicago. The drivers I speak to tend to use both Lyft and Uber, but prefer Lyft overall; Lyft allows tipping, and Uber customers are allegedly pickier.
I'd say most people I know use one or the other exclusively. I think Uber actually tends to be cheaper at busier times than Lyft if you tip when you use Lyft. The average Uber vehicle seems newer than Lyft vehicle as well.
Either way, I don't think Lyft is at much of a competitive disadvantage in Chicago, at least in the 20-something crowd. The older individuals I know are much more likely to use Uber exclusively, and use the features that are not present in Lyft, like calling a standard taxi, or Uber Black.
It's all anecdotal of course, but I personally wouldn't worry too much about Lyft. I think the fact that they appear to allow a broader range of vehicles and drivers is a competitive advantage.
Exactly this, to be honest. I use Lyft whenever Uber is too far away, but always prefer Uber given the choice primarily for this reason. (That, and Uber has a superior airport pickup UI, last I checked.)
It's not about money; it's just a UX thing. I don't like having to remember to go back into the app after the fact to pay more to not look like a jerk. I'd rather Lyft just raise their rates by 15% and kill the option to tip, or at least give me an opt-in setting to auto-tip (and factor the auto-tip into fare estimates).
As opposed to saying drivers are already getting tipped despite the fact that there's no percentage of the fare that's set aside and preserved from Uber's cut ie they're not being tipped?
I am against tipping as a practice in general. Tipping or not tipping results in preferential treatment, subtle attitude changes, depending on the amount tipped and so on. It's more about the social discomfort I have around tipping, rather than the money itself.
Okay well obviously that's the case. That's the bargaining chip that you have available.
The expectation is that you get good service and pay for it in the amount of roughly 15-20% of your actual bill of sale.
If you do not get good service, the bargaining chip available to you is to tip less and stop coming in.
If you do get good service and you choose to tip less then you're the one not holding up your side of the bargain. The bargaining chip available to them is to give you worse service so you stop coming in.
Tipping is not a good solution, but you honestly just sound like a cheapskate. Obviously there are repercussions for not abiding by standard transaction practice.
Which is obviously not at all relevant to the topic at hand. I don't think tipping should exist as a whole. However, it does exist in the US. Therefore, if you attempt to opt out, i.e. be a cheapskate, then expect there to be repercussions.
Eg Uber removes the expectations of tipping---without outright banning it. (The removed expectation was what I was actually talking about. I was sloppy when I wrote 'forbid'.)
I hate tipping. I am happy to stick to a deal we agreed to up front. Uber offers that model. As long as Uber doesn't force the drivers to work for them, I don't care too much what deal they accept from Uber.
Most drivers seem to work with multiple apps. Uber probably paints working as a driver in the most glorious light possible---so you can call that deception, but it's not too different from any other job, and easy enough to leave. I don't see how they are deceiving the users though? I get a ride and pay roughly what the fare estimate says.
(The drivers are sure worse off than me. After all I work in tech, and they are driving cars. But my discretionary charitable budget goes towards more efficient approaches towards relieving human suffering, than helping people in first world countries.)
For the record, I think Uber's management are mostly jerks. But as a service provider they undercut regular Sydney cabs by around 50% and provide better value. By comparison, in Singapore regular cabs are mostly alright, so there Uber isn't nearly as appealing for me.
If supply & demand intersect at a price which is even 20% higher than it currently is, that would be fine by me. What I hate is the mental gymnastics of tipping, the lengths which Lyft drivers go to to extort tips from you, and the clear potential for discrimination which a tipping culture creates.
I haven't used Lyft much, but the times I have drivers have pointedly recommended how much of a tip to give and even handed me a card with suggested tip percentages on it. A lot of them parrot the Lyft line that "tipping is always optional and always appreciated."
The experience I witnessed in my city (Ottawa, Canada) definitely leaves the second place entrant Lyft as the winner. I imagine the same narrative plays out in many other markets.
- Uber enters the market
- ugly battle ensues, with Uber and the taxi union embracing their associated stereotypes.
- consumers initially sympathetic to either Uber or the taxi union or both lose all sympathy due to flagrant misbehaviour and law-breaking from both parties
- city hall hammers out a compromise that both Uber and the taxi union grudgingly but mean spiritedly accept
- Lyft comes in the day the compromise takes effect
- everybody switches to Lyft
The last two points haven't happened yet in Ottawa, the new laws come into effect Sept 30. I believe they are a solid prediction though.
Most people won't pay any attention to the political battle though, will they? They'll just pay attention to whether there's an Uber available when they need it, and how much it costs. If those two things are acceptable, I don't see most people switching.
But everybody keeps saying that network effects are important, that Uber is going to win because of mind share and network effects.
So either availability and cost is more important than mind share and network effects -> Lyft wins because they didn't spend millions opening the market but are big enough to be basically equivalent to Uber on cost and availability.
Or network effects and mind share is more important -> Lyft wins because they're the 'good guys' who didn't participate in the Pyrrhic battles in both local and global media.
I suspect that you're right, availability and cost is more important. However colmvp's comment indicates that availability and cost is basically equivalent in major markets, making the political battle the major differentiating point.
For me taxis have a huge availability advantage due to taxi stands at work and at the airport, so I'll continue to use them there and Lyft elsewhere.
But Lyft is stuck in Uber’s shadow. I asked one venture capitalist what he thought of Lyft. He put his thumb and index finger into an L shape, brought his hand to his forehead and mouthed “loser”.
I don't get this obsession with market share. Is Apple a loser? Is Pepsi a loser?
I think tech is unique in that once a given company attains enough market share it typically is then around and stable for a very long time, deservedly so or not.
Citation Microsoft, which through aggressive business tactics became (and continues to be) pseudonymous with personal computing. Apple isn't a loser anymore but that's because they found a new market in handheld devices, I'd argue in terms of the PC battle, despite how good a Mac is (I'm writing this on one) I'd say they've still firmly lost in this market.
But just because you're a loser in the market doesn't mean you lose at everything. Still plenty of money to be made even if you can't make all of the money forever, which seems to be how a lot of VC's define success.
I'd argue in terms of the PC battle, despite how good a Mac is (I'm writing this on one) I'd say they've still firmly lost in this market.
"Measured as sales through the U.S. consumer retail channel, Macs reached rather shocking milestone during first half 2015, according to data that NPD provided to me today. Yes, you can consider this a first, and from lower volume shipments. By operating system: OS X, 49.7 percent; Windows, 48.3 percent; Chrome OS, 1.9 percent. That compares to the same time period in 2014: OS X, 44.8 percent; Windows, 53.1 percent; Chrome OS, 2.1 percent. So there is no confusion, the data is for U.S. consumer laptops."
I'd say market share is less important than revenue share, but Apple considered the loser in this market? I still don't get why market share is getting all the attention.
IMHO that would be due more to Microsoft completely screwing their relationship with a ton of users than Apple doing anything particular. Not that it invalidates anything you've said, a win is a win.
Anyway just because a company has won hard and won hard for awhile that doesn't particularly shield them from losing later on, however I'd say my point stands, from roughly 1992 to 2014 Microsoft dominated the PC market.
Which does not seem to have hurt Lyft much. My non-tech friends say things like "I'll Uber there", and then they open the Lyft app. Probably not the best situation for Lyft, but they are not unknowns or anything.
Thing is, not even Pepsi cares if Pepsi is ok (I know that's not what you meant). They were relevant long enough to buy a bunch of other brands that are most certainly sticking around for a long time.
There is a danger Uber could lose the rights to its own name if it becomes the common term for this in the language. It's happened before. Its why Kleenex makes such a big deal about being a "facial tissue" and Q-tips refer to themselves prominently as "cotton swabs"
> I asked one venture capitalist what he thought of Lyft. He put his thumb and index finger into an L shape, brought his hand to his forehead and mouthed “loser”.
Is this some kind of satire? Do people who have left their fraternity some years ago actually talk that way?
At this stage, both Lyft and and Uber are losers in my view. They haven't proved anything on the market yet.
They are money-churning machines - Investors put money in and a smaller amount of money comes out - Anyone can do that. These companies have been so well-funded since the beginning that they never operated in a 'real economic environment' - There is no way of telling what will happen when the investor money dries up.
Very curious to see what will happens when Uber stop financing the customers rides. Will they ever be able to make money?
Plus so far all their side projects using the technology (uber eat, delivery, etc) look like failures.
Taxis here are such a joke. The taxi drivers that I have been with seem to take so little pride in their driving/presentation/customer service, and they are exploitatively expensive.
No, nice guys come in 15th. Cause they are being tripped, sued, and cheated by the sociopaths. And there seems to be an endless number of those.
As a nice guy developer for many years, who has build some amazing products, I have learned that no good dead goes unpunished. Irregardless I will continue to be a nice guy because that is how I believe the world 'should' work. One last cheer for Bernie!
I really like this idea: "They have talked about building a city and designing it differently, so the car would not dominate the landscape."
Custom-designing a utopic city has been tried before (see California City), but I never tire of seeing people try. The end result could be fantastic, especially in this case.
Lyft, has a name that is not distinctive from the English word "lift", which may make for a nice pun, but it's harder to express in conversation that you'll use a ride-sharing service rather than just calling a friend. "I'll get a lift."
Uber has a lot more brand recognition, but like Chik-fil-A they are also known by a minority for terrible business practices and are on unofficial boycott.
You're saying Chick-fil-A has terrible business practices? The only reason I know for people to hate them is that their owners have taken Christianity-based opposition to gay marriage (or something alone these lines), which doesn't really seem like a business practice of the restaurants.
Perhaps I should have said just "terrible practices". The brand is about perception, and lots of liberals perceive Chik-fil-A as materially supporting regressive social values. Too bad the chicken is fantastic.
With Uber you have the perception that the company is exploiting drivers, driving down wages, disregarding how it puts women at risk, and all kinds of sexist behavior. http://time.com/3595318/uber-sexism-tech-delete-app/
so you agree?
"Word Origin and History for irregardless
an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the opposite of what it is used to express. Attested in non-standard writing from at least 1870s probably a blend of irrespective and regardless."
No, correctness is determined by usage, and Zikes is identifying that the usage has a fairly long history.
One could say the same things about starting a sentence with "so", or using "agree" backwards (the original sense was closer to the form "my statement agrees with you?"), or using "you" instead of "thou"...
Besides being a double negative that results in it not being equivalent to regardless, to your point it's been used for at least 100 years and is still considered non standard.
107 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 162 ms ] threadFail gracefully was over the moment the "disable javascript" checkbox was removed from the options menu in every major browser.
There's a distinction to be made between content sites and application sites. It's really just too much work to try to make an application fall back to plain HTML, but for a content-centered site, like a blog, a news site, etc, it's not that hard to do things right and not require JS.
All 10 of them?
A browser which doesn't implement JavaScript is not crippled; it is 100% functional. A web page which requires JavaScript is crippled, because JavaScript is not required in order to display text and images.
Aside: That one element is blocking an entire working page for no reason. Where oh where has web dev come to :'(
In 2013, I created a program to visualize what hosts a web site notifies when it is loaded http://daten.dieweltistgarnichtso.net/src/list-web-bugs.py – you can see the output for the article here: http://daten.dieweltistgarnichtso.net/pics/graphs/web-bugs/w...
Turning off the native component of anything always has consequences for those tinkering under the hood and the vast majority of those visiting that site don't tinker under the hood.
As the owner of a web dev company, I sometimes consider ignoring the "must work even without javascript" mantra. I haven't yet but there are times.
I say, that's why their women love them! ;-)
Many people in Silicon Valley are biased against Lyft because they think that ride-sharing will be a winner-takes-all market. They are probably wrong. Once a ride-sharing company gets to a certain level of reliability and waiting times are short enough, there is little benefit to using one service over another. Uber and Lyft will both be able to claim a lead in lots of cities, and both will be around for a while.
Furthermore, if you live in a city with both, it's not uncommon to talk with drivers who work for both services.
I will also add that the need for expansion has toned down the quirkiness of Lyft from when they first out a few years back. The giant furry mustache was replaced. No more fist bumps. And the drivers I encounter are generally less talkative and charismatic. That's not meant to criticize the company, but AFAIC, there is just a lot less separating the two companies.
So playing it slow and sane might be second in the long run, but if they keep expanding I don't see them not eating into Uber's market and climbing their way up. Well, unless of course Uber's investment into driverless cars is able to come to fruition within our lifetime.
I'd say most people I know use one or the other exclusively. I think Uber actually tends to be cheaper at busier times than Lyft if you tip when you use Lyft. The average Uber vehicle seems newer than Lyft vehicle as well.
Either way, I don't think Lyft is at much of a competitive disadvantage in Chicago, at least in the 20-something crowd. The older individuals I know are much more likely to use Uber exclusively, and use the features that are not present in Lyft, like calling a standard taxi, or Uber Black.
It's all anecdotal of course, but I personally wouldn't worry too much about Lyft. I think the fact that they appear to allow a broader range of vehicles and drivers is a competitive advantage.
As such, the dude abides.
It's not about money; it's just a UX thing. I don't like having to remember to go back into the app after the fact to pay more to not look like a jerk. I'd rather Lyft just raise their rates by 15% and kill the option to tip, or at least give me an opt-in setting to auto-tip (and factor the auto-tip into fare estimates).
But you don't. The driver doesn't see that you tipped or not.
The expectation is that you get good service and pay for it in the amount of roughly 15-20% of your actual bill of sale.
If you do not get good service, the bargaining chip available to you is to tip less and stop coming in.
If you do get good service and you choose to tip less then you're the one not holding up your side of the bargain. The bargaining chip available to them is to give you worse service so you stop coming in.
Tipping is not a good solution, but you honestly just sound like a cheapskate. Obviously there are repercussions for not abiding by standard transaction practice.
Eg Uber removes the expectations of tipping---without outright banning it. (The removed expectation was what I was actually talking about. I was sloppy when I wrote 'forbid'.)
Most drivers seem to work with multiple apps. Uber probably paints working as a driver in the most glorious light possible---so you can call that deception, but it's not too different from any other job, and easy enough to leave. I don't see how they are deceiving the users though? I get a ride and pay roughly what the fare estimate says.
(The drivers are sure worse off than me. After all I work in tech, and they are driving cars. But my discretionary charitable budget goes towards more efficient approaches towards relieving human suffering, than helping people in first world countries.)
For the record, I think Uber's management are mostly jerks. But as a service provider they undercut regular Sydney cabs by around 50% and provide better value. By comparison, in Singapore regular cabs are mostly alright, so there Uber isn't nearly as appealing for me.
I never said I don't play by whatever practices each country has around tipping. I just don't like it.
Of course drivers like Lyft. Lyft extorts tips from users and hence drivers get more money.
It's also precisely why Lyft will never win: tipping is customer hostile. I don't want to tip and will never use Lyft if Uber is an option.
If supply & demand intersect at a price which is even 20% higher than it currently is, that would be fine by me. What I hate is the mental gymnastics of tipping, the lengths which Lyft drivers go to to extort tips from you, and the clear potential for discrimination which a tipping culture creates.
- Uber enters the market
- ugly battle ensues, with Uber and the taxi union embracing their associated stereotypes.
- consumers initially sympathetic to either Uber or the taxi union or both lose all sympathy due to flagrant misbehaviour and law-breaking from both parties
- city hall hammers out a compromise that both Uber and the taxi union grudgingly but mean spiritedly accept
- Lyft comes in the day the compromise takes effect
- everybody switches to Lyft
The last two points haven't happened yet in Ottawa, the new laws come into effect Sept 30. I believe they are a solid prediction though.
So either availability and cost is more important than mind share and network effects -> Lyft wins because they didn't spend millions opening the market but are big enough to be basically equivalent to Uber on cost and availability.
Or network effects and mind share is more important -> Lyft wins because they're the 'good guys' who didn't participate in the Pyrrhic battles in both local and global media.
I suspect that you're right, availability and cost is more important. However colmvp's comment indicates that availability and cost is basically equivalent in major markets, making the political battle the major differentiating point.
For me taxis have a huge availability advantage due to taxi stands at work and at the airport, so I'll continue to use them there and Lyft elsewhere.
Citation Microsoft, which through aggressive business tactics became (and continues to be) pseudonymous with personal computing. Apple isn't a loser anymore but that's because they found a new market in handheld devices, I'd argue in terms of the PC battle, despite how good a Mac is (I'm writing this on one) I'd say they've still firmly lost in this market.
But just because you're a loser in the market doesn't mean you lose at everything. Still plenty of money to be made even if you can't make all of the money forever, which seems to be how a lot of VC's define success.
http://betanews.com/2015/08/12/yikes-apple-laptop-revenue-sh...
I'd say market share is less important than revenue share, but Apple considered the loser in this market? I still don't get why market share is getting all the attention.
Anyway just because a company has won hard and won hard for awhile that doesn't particularly shield them from losing later on, however I'd say my point stands, from roughly 1992 to 2014 Microsoft dominated the PC market.
PCs still control the corporate market, but that isn't growing like it used to.
http://www.pepsico.com/Brands/
Is this some kind of satire? Do people who have left their fraternity some years ago actually talk that way?
They are money-churning machines - Investors put money in and a smaller amount of money comes out - Anyone can do that. These companies have been so well-funded since the beginning that they never operated in a 'real economic environment' - There is no way of telling what will happen when the investor money dries up.
Very curious to see what will happens when Uber stop financing the customers rides. Will they ever be able to make money? Plus so far all their side projects using the technology (uber eat, delivery, etc) look like failures.
Taxis here are such a joke. The taxi drivers that I have been with seem to take so little pride in their driving/presentation/customer service, and they are exploitatively expensive.
The bar is very low to provide a better service.
Just when I think I've heard the most tone deaf and arrogant thing possible out of a venture capitalist's mouth, the high water mark rises.
Hopefully this person will repeat said gesture in the mirror -- it's entirely apt.
As a nice guy developer for many years, who has build some amazing products, I have learned that no good dead goes unpunished. Irregardless I will continue to be a nice guy because that is how I believe the world 'should' work. One last cheer for Bernie!
I meant it as answer to the question: No, it's not possible to screw over people while being a nice guy. Ipso facto.
I believe this is one of the reasons it's common for people to self-describe themselves as assholes.
Custom-designing a utopic city has been tried before (see California City), but I never tire of seeing people try. The end result could be fantastic, especially in this case.
Uber has a lot more brand recognition, but like Chik-fil-A they are also known by a minority for terrible business practices and are on unofficial boycott.
With Uber you have the perception that the company is exploiting drivers, driving down wages, disregarding how it puts women at risk, and all kinds of sexist behavior. http://time.com/3595318/uber-sexism-tech-delete-app/
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/irregardless
One could say the same things about starting a sentence with "so", or using "agree" backwards (the original sense was closer to the form "my statement agrees with you?"), or using "you" instead of "thou"...