Web 1.0 is any website with the doctag <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//SoftQuad Software//DTD HoTMetaL PRO 6.0::19990601::extensions to HTML 4.0//EN">; it's frames based designs, table based layouts, blink tags and under construction gifs.
Web 2.0 is the transition from homepages and webmasters to content and platforms, users are producing the content and platform owners get rich off ads. It also coincides with the shift to AJAX and web applications that had logic in the front-end, but this isn't really part of the actual definition.
Web 3.0 was briefly the semantic web. It didn't really take off and was largely forgotten when the cryptobros relaunched the term. New Web 3 is all about using decentralization, blockchains and cryptocurrencies and NFTs to somehow solve the problems with Web 2.0.
As far as I understand, web 1.0 is browser makes a request -> backend delivers some html, with subsequent requests just for css/images/iframes. This also had a characteristic style with layouts made from tables and simple but busy designs. Web 2.0 is many of the web apps you see today, where you don’t need to load a page to fetch new content, but instead asynchronous JavaScript grabs it and edits the html — think gmail or Google maps. Web 3.0 is unclear to me, but it seems like most people who use it refer to decentralized or peer to peer applications and crypto.
Today it’s primarily a load of nonsense that cryptocurrency promoters use to make people want to buy tokens related to some useless website which has no users except the other token holders.
Back in 2005, “web 2.0” was a marketing term meant to indicate optimism that dynamic web applications could transcend the economic disappointments of the dot-com boom and bust. It was always nebulous and poorly defined, and the only reason we’re talking about “web 2.0” almost two decades later is the aforementioned crypto promoters.
1.0 was mostly static web pages with content changes largely driven by manual page updates to static web resources. This was the era where most sites were powered by an httpd host.
2.0 was when databases and ajax (JavaScript async) started to take over as a web content delivery form. Often content delivery moved from semantic page navigation flows to "single page applications" where the client state was often held client side and pushed to the server when asking for new content.
3.0 is the marketing term for crypto based projects that are trying to sell "a brand new web" where there are no longer centralized services providing content, and somewhere it all gets glued together with crypto forgetting that most of the modern web users are running on cell phones with limited cpu and more importantly battery constraints. It's also part of a proud group of technologies that garnered a catchy marketing term to describe the movement before the practical implementations emerged (much unlike web 1.0, 2.0 before it).
I fully agree that 3.0 is the marketing term for decentralized cryptobro stuff, but isn't it also a term that tentatively belonged to a more generic idea of a regular web that iterates beyond web 2.0?
Right, that's what I mean. Of course it won't stop people, people who are evidently even less acquainted with the subject of than me before I asked my question, from giving confidently incorrect responses.
I don't believe that their version of the term web 3.0 really took off the way that the web 2.0 buzzword did, but I vaguely understand the term having a meaning independent of the meaning given to it by crypto enthusiasts.
Oh it definitely had a meaning before the crypto people started using it. When I think of Web3 I think of "never really got clearly defined, those semantic web guys got close" and then being used for crypto.
Wikipedia backs me up too[0].
> 08:27, 24 October 2006 Lumos3 talk contribs 18,470 bytes +36 Web 3 redirects here so should be shown as a synonym
So at the end of 06 Wikipedia was referring to semantic web already as Web 3. The first release of bitcoin wasn't until 09.
I don't think there is, because even here there is disagreement about whether a web server that returns html and css without using NodeJS is 1.0 or 2.0.
The boundary is fuzzy, as others have pointed out. If there's one specific technology that serves as a definite boundary it's the use of XMLHttpRequest in javascript running on the browser, later dubbed "AJAX", which is short for Asynchronous JavaScript and XML.
It was first implemented (non-standard) around 2001 in Windows 2000, Outlook and IE 5. Subsequently other browsers (Mozilla in particular) adopted it and it became a def facto standard.
Not every site the uses/used Ajax is fully Web 2.0, but they are definitely not 1.0. The affect on web development was transformative, resulting in "DHTML", or Dynamic HTML. Webmail, for example, in the gmail, first released in 2004, you see a fully Web 2.0 site. You might say it's the beginning of what's called the Single Page Application. At a time when the average home internet connection was still pretty slow over dial-up, eliminating most round-trips was a game-changer.
There was Web 1.0. Then there was Web 2.0. Now we find ourselves in the era of Web Pi (3.14159). This humorous term comes from one of my favourite comments that I once found on HN. Quoting the comment from <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30139081> below:
> Nice read. Firm supporter of Web Pi (3.1415). When it comes to building for the web today, I'm always amazed that "so much can be done with so little" and yet the default is the opposite - "so much is needed to deliver so little" - so irrational! Where did we go wrong? I wonder what Web Euler (2.71828) would have looked like?
In that same thread, I made a comment that my favourite phase of the web was Web Golden (1.61803). That was my attempt at extending their humour. Web Golden refers to the very short-lived sweet spot between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. If you're looking for a moderate dose of nostalgia, I have elaborated that golden phase a little more in my blog post here: <https://susam.net/maze/web-golden.html>.
By the way, the Wiby link on this HN story took me to this website: <https://www.evanmiller.org/>. Really neat website with an interesting collection of articles.
The brutalist/undesigned style is an interesting vibe, but there are very simple things that could be done to radically improve information architecture and readability without sacrificing minimalism.
They had their charm, sure, but messy table-based layouts, fluorescent color schemes, scrolling text and flashing gifs aren't exactly what I would call readable. Give me Web 0.1 instead (black text, white background, maybe 5 lines of styling).
It’s prone to MITM attacks and it allows snooping for what pages are visited. Some US ISPs use(d) this vulnerability to inject ads into pages. On a public/shared network you might be vulnerable to automated attacks.
It took me here https://greem.co.uk/otherbits/jelly.html Nailing jelly to a wall: is it possible? Which I think is HN worthy in its own right. Also the author of that page and I have the same toaster.
The “old web” is still there, as evidenced by this page and the submission. We didn’t lose anything. New things just came and made more noise. You can still set up a static HTML site in an afternoon.
> I conducted this experiment as a little diversion in the lazy few weeks between finishing my final year exams at university and graduating, back in June 2005.
Everything about that page screamed "I'm bored in a dorm." Nice to know my college-dar is still accurate.
Also, it would have been nice to test with flat masonry nails. I.e. not round shank.
> Further research into the area might involve the nailing to the wall of a stronger jelly mix. Alternatively, the "wall" could be placed, nails first, into the jelly while it's setting, to allow the jelly to set around the nails. Then in the morning the bowl can be removed, leaving the jelly nailed to the wall.
Ahaha, but also, hmmm... thinking would it actually work if you allowed the jelly to set around the nails?
If you read further some commenters tried that and failed, along with setting straws into the jelly and nailing them and mixing solids into the jelly to improve the structural integrity. The results are only noted as mixed, so I assume they didn’t work out reliably.
I definitely have a few ideas: try smoother and surfaces to adhere to (does jelly suction to the surface?), set the jelly vertically in a box against the wall, try mixing cool whip into the jelly to thicken it…
> This page is copyright 2005 by Graeme Cole. What are you allowed to do with it? Pfft. Anything within the realms of common sense, really. I don't want to prescribe rigidly what people can and can't do with it, so I've decided on a benchmark. It's this: you're allowed to do with this page anything you wouldn't mind me doing with your cat. So yes, you can photoshop it for comedy effect, you can copy bits of it for illustrative purposes and so on, but you can't steal it and pass it off as your own.
Pretty sure the value of the CC licenses isn't that they invented any particular set of restrictions and freedoms, but that they applied enough lawyer energy so that the wording of those sets would be compatible with law systems.
You had to ask and apparently I have nothing to better to do on a Saturday night. It's a Russell Hobbs Model 5569, it says it has a "microchip" inside. If I was to hazard a guess it's at least 25 years old (the post is 18 so sounds reasonable). It actually fits a piece of toast, even thick pieces or crumpets which a lot of modern toasters don't. It does require the toast flipping since it does one side more than the other but that's not a hardship. A single flip on about "2" does a nice golden brown.
Toasters that cannot fit crumpets should be a violation of some aspect of the UN Charter on Human Rights.
I used to also have that toaster with the "microchip." It sounded impressive at the time. Now I want to tear one open and see what sort of "microchip" it uses. A 555?
A cheap toaster these days will use a toaster ASIC rather than a general purpose microcontroller or timer. PT8A2514 [1] is one example. Another surprising type of ASICs I've come across are vape ASICS [2].
Maybe that's what I could have done with Butterfly Labs[1] Jalapeno (sic, no ñ) devices I was given, all laser-etched with "WARRANTY VOID". They could only do SHA256(SHA256(x)), and man did they put out a lot of heat. Reportedly, the chip was unusually dense and took a long time to validate. I'd have needed to alter the thermal throttling behaviour in the firmware, I suppose.
[1] Yes, the one that was seized be the FTC after some of the company officers (and a "not an officer, but functionally an officer") decided to do things that got most of them busted.
My grandmother has a toaster from 1958 that has the smoothest glide function I have ever witnessed on a toaster.
The toast doesn't pop up, it floats up, quietly. You have to pay attention to is so your toast doesn't go cold because it is so stealthy.
It broke after a few years of use way back in the day, roughly 1960 or so, as the story goes) and my granddad fixed it, losing a few screws from the toaster in the process, but it has worked for 63 years since its repair without a single fault or flaw.
I can guarantee that this is an entirely mechanical toaster, analogue only, no chips or ASICs involved, and no toaster you can get your hands on in the great wild world will toast better toast more elegantly than this one.
How long before I can buy a toaster that includes an LLM? That way I can describe the toast to it that I want, thusly:
Dear enchanting toaster, I beseech thee to weave a symphony of flavor and texture, guided by the poetic brushstrokes of my desires. Listen, oh marvelous appliance, as I unfold a tale of toast that shall stir the heart and captivate the senses.
In this culinary journey, I yearn for a slice of bread transformed into a work of edible art — a toast that embodies the very essence of ethereal romance. Picture, if you will, my slice of pristine bread within you, its delicate countenance kissed by the gentle touch of dawn's first light. Let it bask in the warmth of your toasting chamber, embracing the fiery caress that will awaken its hidden splendor.
With tender patience, allow your heat to coax forth a golden radiance upon the bread's surface, reminiscent of sun-kissed fields at twilight. Let the transformation be a gradual dance, like the opening petals of a blossoming rose, revealing a spectrum of hues that shall ignite the senses. Let the crust turn into a testament of commitment, a delicate mosaic of crispness that hints at the harmony of opposites.
But, dear toaster, I implore you to preserve the heart of the bread, the very core that holds the promise of softness and tenderness. Let it retain its supple embrace, reminiscent of a lover's touch, inviting and yielding. May its very essence exude warmth, like an embrace shared under a starlit sky, a comforting sanctuary to nourish both body and soul.
And as the toast emerges from your magical realm, dear toaster, let it carry with it a captivating aroma—an olfactory sonnet that weaves itself delicately into the air, whispering of grains toasted to perfection. Let it permeate the senses, inviting the beholder to partake in a communion of flavors, a delicate dance upon the taste buds.
Oh, wondrous toaster with an AI's soul, may you manifest this vision of toast, a masterpiece created from mere bread and heat. As I entrust my desires to your intelligence, I await with eager anticipation, ready to indulge in a moment of pure culinary enchantment.
Focus DIY, one of the stores that the author states his materials were sourced from, has been defunct since July 2011. Just to add some context to when this experiment might have taken place.
Edit: I see the page's copyright date is 2005, so it's probably safe to assume that's when the original experiment took place.
> jelly (from the French gelée)[29] is a clear or translucent fruit spread made by a process similar to that used for making jam, with the additional step of filtering out the fruit pulp after the initial cooking.
When making them we (UK) tend to use pectin as the thickening agent for jams/marmalades and gelatin for jelly. You can buy sugar with pectin added marketed as 'jam sugar'.
> The fact that this page is now old enough to vote hasn't stopped the internet rediscovering it. Much as I would like keep everything preserved exactly as it was as an example of the older, simpler web, some of the links above had become dead or worse, so they've been removed.
> For those asking about the toaster: as I recall, it was better at toasting the middle and bottom of the bread than the top.
I love this. Does anyone know how the list was compiled? I would suspect a custom web crawler that only indexes sites using certain tags. Which makes me wonder if there are any sites that would qualify with the exception of a modern js advertisement someone slapped on. I
Another way to find web 1.0 websites is to browse with Javascript on temporary whitelist only. Any JS dependent modern site will fail to display and you can safely close the tab knowing it was commercial crap anyway.
> We are well-liked by Black people so we're psyched (since lots of Black people don't like lots of White people)!! We thought it'd be cool to honor our exceptional status with a ROCKIN' domain name and a killer website!!
I was curious who would pay to keep a joke domain name and website up for 20+ years, and it turns out it’s Chelsea Peretti (Brooklyn 99) and her brother Jonah Peretti (Buzzfeed and HuffPo).
What is really fascinating about these old websites is that they are still up and running. The content in the link you posted is over two decades old. But they are still paying the money for the domain name and keeping the website alive!
Wow, I was not expecting to be taken to such an interesting website on my first click: http://www.goodearthgraphics.com/ This site has an underground cave directory by state, cave virtual tours with photos, cave type descriptions, cave photography tips and much more. I may just use this website to plan my next road trip and explore some caves.
import flask
import random
app=flask.Flask()
@app.route('/')
def random_redir():
with open('urls.txt') as of:
return flask.redirect(random.choice(of.readlines()))
Premature optimization may sometimes be unadvisable, but in this case the optimized version uses half the memory, is two orders of magnitude faster, and doesn't let your users DOS you by triggering huge file reads on each request.
> doesn't let your users DOS you by triggering huge file reads on each request.
I understood what you were trying to do on your first reply – "Prolly don't want to read the file on every request though" – no need to repeat yourself.
plese remember:
1. it's pseudo code, the optimisation is superfluous
Remember stumbling into amateur written sci-fi stories with layouts like that. Downloading them to read on CRT monitor till late in the night, and losing them forever the next time windows would destroy itself.
It's awesome how you can stumble upon sites that are so funny or interesting (in multiple ways) that you just want to share them immediately forward. Everyone says it but it's true: something just got lost in translation when social media pages ate the whole internet.
What I've found consistently scarier this past decade+ is the casualness and seeming inevitability with which vast swathes of the population can be captured by unfavorable technology and social spaces or narratives.
And yeah, what you and others here often enough describe(d) are the shadows on the wall. Keeping civilization and culture on track really is a constant struggle.
Vast swaths of the population are uninteresting rubes. Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter are all doing us a favor by keeping those people occupied and their drivel contained.
The MSM/MEM as population control vehicle/idiot honeypot is a salient angle though you quickly get into self-fulfilling prophecy stuff there. Perhaps it's me being overly pessimistic, but I too might have been captured by the mind-rot matrix if I had grown up with that shit, never knowing what was or could be.
I'm not and yet the fate of a population is not arbitrary. MSM is society-level technology and it's clearly doing something to it that would not have happened in its absence.
I'm seeing it in personal acquaintances, who get lost in the information garbage sphere and struggle to contextualize the places that unfavorably shape their belief system (not talking about niche crackpot sites, but trash media here).
This is the polar opposite of what I had hoped would happen with this technology before it got captured by economic incentives. And it's also not what would have happened, had this mold not proliferated, and slower but curated systems prevailed.
It's not all terrible, there's resilience and adaptation. And yet I cannot stop feeling we're dealing with a quite unwelcome phenomenon that weakens a sizable part of us who would profit from a more controlled information environment the most (the dumb get dumber, the smart get smarter, and everyone gets more distracted and fickle).
Mainstream social (or entertainment) media, by which I mean all the content consumption apps your typical non-tech parents or acquaintances in that age group know about (in my case Instagram, Facebook and ragebait meme groups but luckily not yet TikTok; the wider web outside news sites is pretty much unknown).
Reddit or Mastodon for instance I would not call mainstream from my standpoint, but I left the former site many years ago and have no idea about its current popularity (my only contemporary use is when it pops up in my searches as a sort of wildcard forum).
MSM usually means "Main Stream Media". So like broadcast and cable news and conventional newspapers. Overloading it to refer to social media is really confusing because social media is pretty much the opposite thing.
"Entertainment news" is a sub-genre of MSM, typically you see this on the cable news channels or the "opinion" section of a newspaper.
If you get your news from Facebook you aren't getting it from "the MSM" as that term is generally understood. I guess you could coin MSSM for "Main Stream Social Media" to differentiate Twitter from Mastodon (or Reddit from HN?) but honestly I think you can just type out "social media" and not die of fatigue.
Isn’t hacker news doing the same thing for the most parts? This is a little rude but I went through your history and maybe you should be more careful who you call “uninteresting rubes” and “drivel”.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're in the category. I don't think anyone is. I'm just poking a little at your self awareness and your lack of respect toward your fellow people. I do think there is an issue with the walled gardens, but I don't think it's the people who use them. It's the psychological effect of having affirmation systems tied to everything you post. I'm sure most people would post waaaaaaaay less "uninteresting" content if it wasn't because of the dopamine chase. I'm guilty of it myself. I try to ask myself if I'm really trying to contribute or if I'm just posting to get likes, and sometimes it prevents me from posting things to social media sites. There are a lot of time where it doesn't though. You may not put much value in Reddits karma system, but what value do you put into your hacker news account? I know from my own experience that it's been fairly healthy for me to create a new account every time I reach a 1000 points. I hope that I'll eventually get to the point where I don't have to do that, but I'm not sure I'm there yet.
It's obviously up to you, but I'd encourage you to not so blatantly disregard other people for what they post on social media. Because social media is a game for our attention, and most of us chase that sweet dopamine rush, even though everything we post on social media sort of disappears after a day and is frankly invisible in the sea of sameness posted by our peers.
Speaking as someone else, I go on reddit because there are occasional domain experts. It's 99% repetitive drivel (I myself am guilty of the same) and 1% person who actually knows what they're talking about.
That number is proportional to %experts/%non-experts, and is inversely correlated with the size of a subreddit (though the AskHistorians subreddit remains an excellent exception), and is the reason why the NonCredibleDefense is usually more credible than the CredibleDefense.
I personally drifted to hackernews from reddit as a general "reddit", but I find it's probably wise to take with a grain of salt the legal/maths/physics/economics/"anything not related to computer science" opinions of the people here. It's probably a good general rule of thumb to only take advice from experts in their domains.
I’m a Reddit expat, the only app that made it usable is dead now so here I am. I know I won’t find talk on Dead Cells tips or Rocket League coaching, but at least there’s lots of good tech discussion and occasional political shitposting that feeds that part of my soul
That’s incredibly reductive and shows you maybe don’t spend time in these spaces based on your perceptions? Many of my friends are talented makers who use social media to communicate about what they do with friends and fans. I’ve learned a lot about knitting and crochet through finding people with those skills on social media. I’ve made strong personal connections with strangers far far from me. I’ve found groups to share and debate and discuss topics important to me.
And acting like “quarantining” people to keep them out of your other online spaces is a good thing? Gross. More access and spread of information helps everyone become more interesting, it spurs innovation, it fosters creativity.
I came to HN after the Reddit API stuff killed Apollo, and though I’ve been here before from search engines, I’m now really getting into the community. It’s been great to see different things and feel inspired to look at how I do thinks in my profession. I wish I had really spent more time here sooner, but fortunately for you I was relegated to my drivel on Reddit until now.
They didn’t eat the entire Internet. They didn’t even eat the web. They set up parallel walled gardens. The web is still there. Personal websites just don’t scale to the masses. This is fine and probably for the best.
I get this metric but at what point is the cutoff? If a small home run website has good info and gets popular, and has to add more advertisements, do they then get deranked on the search engine that led people there?
> If a small home run website has good info and gets popular, and has to add more advertisements
More advertisements? Any advertisements make the site worse. More makes it more worse.
It's so inexpensive to have a website these days, even one that pulls in a substantial number of visitors, that it's hard to make an argument that ads are necessary to pay for hosting.
Oh for sure, just a hypothetical lol. And idk maybe you write software or something that you want to keep as free as you can, so ads make it doable to sustain that. There’s any number of valid reasons to advertise, and if it’s a site for content I support I’ll probably turn of ublock so long as the ads aren’t overwhelming or obstructing
If you've missed all the HN love for it over the past while, there's a search engine here: https://search.marginalia.nu/
which is trying to achieve just that
That speaks more to the gentrification of search engines and their results rather than the loss of small, independent websites.
Once upon a time, I could search for something on Yahoo or Google and get nothing but those kinds of websites in search results, even when some central repository sites like Wikipedia were starting to take root.
Everything changed when the SEO nation attacked, and nobody expected the social media inquisition.
It's both. Loss of discoverability leads to ecological collapse of personal website. There's little point when the only reader is destined to be its own author.
Period true search methods (webrings, curated indexes, portals and early search engines) are gone and so is the fighting chance for this kind of projects.
That's kind of the point of wiby (the site that's doing the randomization in this post). They only index web 1.0 stuff.
Not quite sure what their definition of that is, since I've seen recently updated things. Without CSS? Without JS? Maybe just websites that never make a JS fetch request once they're loaded.
My theory is that it's that on many of these sites there's no easy way to comment, like or otherwise publicly interact. Sure you could try and email the person but that takes effort and you have to talk directly to them, not to a crowd.
When you don't have to worry about a mob of negativity, you can write far more freely.
Yup, social media is a one-to-many relationship, and sometimes the messy many-to-many relationship. Web 1.0 sites have more have a one-to-one posture (unless they become exceedingly popular at least)
These sites only get shared via some sort of centralized (or not) type of social media. AIM and MSN was the craze back then, you either saw web 1.0 stuff from your friends there, or coworkers via email.
Another aspect is that you could actually find these sites in the past. I have vague recollections of spending hours going through a bunch of garbage to find some goldmine Web 1.0 site. I don’t remember the last time I found an old site like these
I really can't comprehend how web 1.0 and 2.0 are two completely different Earths. The new web makes me hate people to the point of misanthropy while the old web makes me love people and see the potential in the world all over again. We've got to do something about this. Well, I guess OP already is.
I concur with your statement. Going through random sites for an hour, it gave me thinking back 25 years ago, when going from rings to rings of websites, look at them, reading the interesting ones and finally bookmarking them to be able to come back to them.
A complete different way to present a personal topic and/or interest than the current one. Right now, it is blogs that trying to gather an audience for whatever purposes, commercial websites, social medias etc. This compared to websites that gathered personal interests, or one specific topic that tries to be self-contained.
I don't know maybe it is the nostalgia, or how I have first interacted with the web, that brings back those contrasts.
371 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 337 ms ] threadWeb 2.0 is the transition from homepages and webmasters to content and platforms, users are producing the content and platform owners get rich off ads. It also coincides with the shift to AJAX and web applications that had logic in the front-end, but this isn't really part of the actual definition.
Web 3.0 was briefly the semantic web. It didn't really take off and was largely forgotten when the cryptobros relaunched the term. New Web 3 is all about using decentralization, blockchains and cryptocurrencies and NFTs to somehow solve the problems with Web 2.0.
Back in 2005, “web 2.0” was a marketing term meant to indicate optimism that dynamic web applications could transcend the economic disappointments of the dot-com boom and bust. It was always nebulous and poorly defined, and the only reason we’re talking about “web 2.0” almost two decades later is the aforementioned crypto promoters.
- usually no or minimal javascript
- minimal CSS, leaning on default styles
- feels like a passion project by one person or a small group
- design is usually minimal and completely lacking in any “techniques” used to manipulate you
- usually isn’t trying to sell you anything
2.0 was when databases and ajax (JavaScript async) started to take over as a web content delivery form. Often content delivery moved from semantic page navigation flows to "single page applications" where the client state was often held client side and pushed to the server when asking for new content.
3.0 is the marketing term for crypto based projects that are trying to sell "a brand new web" where there are no longer centralized services providing content, and somewhere it all gets glued together with crypto forgetting that most of the modern web users are running on cell phones with limited cpu and more importantly battery constraints. It's also part of a proud group of technologies that garnered a catchy marketing term to describe the movement before the practical implementations emerged (much unlike web 1.0, 2.0 before it).
I don't believe that their version of the term web 3.0 really took off the way that the web 2.0 buzzword did, but I vaguely understand the term having a meaning independent of the meaning given to it by crypto enthusiasts.
Wikipedia backs me up too[0].
> 08:27, 24 October 2006 Lumos3 talk contribs 18,470 bytes +36 Web 3 redirects here so should be shown as a synonym
So at the end of 06 Wikipedia was referring to semantic web already as Web 3. The first release of bitcoin wasn't until 09.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semantic_Web&oldi...
It was first implemented (non-standard) around 2001 in Windows 2000, Outlook and IE 5. Subsequently other browsers (Mozilla in particular) adopted it and it became a def facto standard.
Not every site the uses/used Ajax is fully Web 2.0, but they are definitely not 1.0. The affect on web development was transformative, resulting in "DHTML", or Dynamic HTML. Webmail, for example, in the gmail, first released in 2004, you see a fully Web 2.0 site. You might say it's the beginning of what's called the Single Page Application. At a time when the average home internet connection was still pretty slow over dial-up, eliminating most round-trips was a game-changer.
> Nice read. Firm supporter of Web Pi (3.1415). When it comes to building for the web today, I'm always amazed that "so much can be done with so little" and yet the default is the opposite - "so much is needed to deliver so little" - so irrational! Where did we go wrong? I wonder what Web Euler (2.71828) would have looked like?
In that same thread, I made a comment that my favourite phase of the web was Web Golden (1.61803). That was my attempt at extending their humour. Web Golden refers to the very short-lived sweet spot between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. If you're looking for a moderate dose of nostalgia, I have elaborated that golden phase a little more in my blog post here: <https://susam.net/maze/web-golden.html>.
By the way, the Wiby link on this HN story took me to this website: <https://www.evanmiller.org/>. Really neat website with an interesting collection of articles.
Under that perspective it's not Web 3.0 yet.
This was with one click. Never used this before.
https://yvettesbridalformal.p1r8.net
What is the tech stack? How do you identify the Web 1.0 sites? Is it automatic or a manual list? Are you filtering NSFW sites?
https://wiby.me/about/guide.html
This whole thread ia brilliant, I do miss the old web.
Everything about that page screamed "I'm bored in a dorm." Nice to know my college-dar is still accurate.
Also, it would have been nice to test with flat masonry nails. I.e. not round shank.
Ahaha, but also, hmmm... thinking would it actually work if you allowed the jelly to set around the nails?
I definitely have a few ideas: try smoother and surfaces to adhere to (does jelly suction to the surface?), set the jelly vertically in a box against the wall, try mixing cool whip into the jelly to thicken it…
> This page is copyright 2005 by Graeme Cole. What are you allowed to do with it? Pfft. Anything within the realms of common sense, really. I don't want to prescribe rigidly what people can and can't do with it, so I've decided on a benchmark. It's this: you're allowed to do with this page anything you wouldn't mind me doing with your cat. So yes, you can photoshop it for comedy effect, you can copy bits of it for illustrative purposes and so on, but you can't steal it and pass it off as your own.
I used to also have that toaster with the "microchip." It sounded impressive at the time. Now I want to tear one open and see what sort of "microchip" it uses. A 555?
[1]: https://www.diodes.com/assets/Datasheets/PT8A2514A.pdf [2]: http://robruark.com/other/Teardowns/Vape_ASIC/vape_asic.html
Maybe that's what I could have done with Butterfly Labs[1] Jalapeno (sic, no ñ) devices I was given, all laser-etched with "WARRANTY VOID". They could only do SHA256(SHA256(x)), and man did they put out a lot of heat. Reportedly, the chip was unusually dense and took a long time to validate. I'd have needed to alter the thermal throttling behaviour in the firmware, I suppose.
[1] Yes, the one that was seized be the FTC after some of the company officers (and a "not an officer, but functionally an officer") decided to do things that got most of them busted.
The toast doesn't pop up, it floats up, quietly. You have to pay attention to is so your toast doesn't go cold because it is so stealthy.
It broke after a few years of use way back in the day, roughly 1960 or so, as the story goes) and my granddad fixed it, losing a few screws from the toaster in the process, but it has worked for 63 years since its repair without a single fault or flaw.
I can guarantee that this is an entirely mechanical toaster, analogue only, no chips or ASICs involved, and no toaster you can get your hands on in the great wild world will toast better toast more elegantly than this one.
Dear enchanting toaster, I beseech thee to weave a symphony of flavor and texture, guided by the poetic brushstrokes of my desires. Listen, oh marvelous appliance, as I unfold a tale of toast that shall stir the heart and captivate the senses.
In this culinary journey, I yearn for a slice of bread transformed into a work of edible art — a toast that embodies the very essence of ethereal romance. Picture, if you will, my slice of pristine bread within you, its delicate countenance kissed by the gentle touch of dawn's first light. Let it bask in the warmth of your toasting chamber, embracing the fiery caress that will awaken its hidden splendor.
With tender patience, allow your heat to coax forth a golden radiance upon the bread's surface, reminiscent of sun-kissed fields at twilight. Let the transformation be a gradual dance, like the opening petals of a blossoming rose, revealing a spectrum of hues that shall ignite the senses. Let the crust turn into a testament of commitment, a delicate mosaic of crispness that hints at the harmony of opposites.
But, dear toaster, I implore you to preserve the heart of the bread, the very core that holds the promise of softness and tenderness. Let it retain its supple embrace, reminiscent of a lover's touch, inviting and yielding. May its very essence exude warmth, like an embrace shared under a starlit sky, a comforting sanctuary to nourish both body and soul.
And as the toast emerges from your magical realm, dear toaster, let it carry with it a captivating aroma—an olfactory sonnet that weaves itself delicately into the air, whispering of grains toasted to perfection. Let it permeate the senses, inviting the beholder to partake in a communion of flavors, a delicate dance upon the taste buds.
Oh, wondrous toaster with an AI's soul, may you manifest this vision of toast, a masterpiece created from mere bread and heat. As I entrust my desires to your intelligence, I await with eager anticipation, ready to indulge in a moment of pure culinary enchantment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRq_SAuQDec&pp=ygUOdGFsa2llI...
Of course, don't be surprised when we gather up the pitchforks and come for you
Edit: I see the page's copyright date is 2005, so it's probably safe to assume that's when the original experiment took place.
> jelly (from the French gelée)[29] is a clear or translucent fruit spread made by a process similar to that used for making jam, with the additional step of filtering out the fruit pulp after the initial cooking.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_preserves#Jelly
Jam should be nowhere near as firm as jelly.
> 15th July 2023: Fix link rot
> The fact that this page is now old enough to vote hasn't stopped the internet rediscovering it. Much as I would like keep everything preserved exactly as it was as an example of the older, simpler web, some of the links above had become dead or worse, so they've been removed.
> For those asking about the toaster: as I recall, it was better at toasting the middle and bottom of the bread than the top.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36740261
[1]: https://wiby.me/about/guide.html
Wiby.me: curated search engine for content-first suckless sites - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33373619 - Oct 2022 (65 comments)
Show HN: Wiby is now free software - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32027177 - July 2022 (35 comments)
Wiby: A search engine for the classic web - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25153524 - Nov 2020 (4 comments)
Show HN: Wiby – A Minimalist’s Search Engine - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23926964 - July 2020 (23 comments)
Wiby – The Search Engine for Classic Websites - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22321743 - Feb 2020 (1 comment)
Wiby – A Search Engine for Classic Websites - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20128680 - June 2019 (1 comment)
Wiby – a search engine for classic web pages - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19015356 - Jan 2019 (1 comment)
Show HN: Wiby – Search engine for lightweight, unbloated, old school websites - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17355218 - June 2018 (2 comments)
Wiby – the search engine for old school websites - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16521862 - March 2018 (1 comment)
Probably a lesson about startups in here somewhere
We went easy on that one because the content was better than usual.
> We are well-liked by Black people so we're psyched (since lots of Black people don't like lots of White people)!! We thought it'd be cool to honor our exceptional status with a ROCKIN' domain name and a killer website!!
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125566&page=1
> Sally always says things that make me feel special, like: "You're so cool, you're different, you're not like other Black people!"
https://www.avclub.com/read-this-in-2002-black-people-love-u...
OK, was not expecting that.
Reminds me of the days when it was ordinary to memorize dozens and dozens of phone numbers, so one-offs had to be at least temporarily memorable.
this is false
> two orders of magnitude faster
incorrect
> doesn't let your users DOS you by triggering huge file reads on each request.
I understood what you were trying to do on your first reply – "Prolly don't want to read the file on every request though" – no need to repeat yourself.
plese remember:
1. it's pseudo code, the optimisation is superfluous
2. it never ran, the optimisation is useless
And yeah, what you and others here often enough describe(d) are the shadows on the wall. Keeping civilization and culture on track really is a constant struggle.
You aren’t responsible for what other people do. Just live your own life.
I'm seeing it in personal acquaintances, who get lost in the information garbage sphere and struggle to contextualize the places that unfavorably shape their belief system (not talking about niche crackpot sites, but trash media here).
This is the polar opposite of what I had hoped would happen with this technology before it got captured by economic incentives. And it's also not what would have happened, had this mold not proliferated, and slower but curated systems prevailed.
It's not all terrible, there's resilience and adaptation. And yet I cannot stop feeling we're dealing with a quite unwelcome phenomenon that weakens a sizable part of us who would profit from a more controlled information environment the most (the dumb get dumber, the smart get smarter, and everyone gets more distracted and fickle).
Reddit or Mastodon for instance I would not call mainstream from my standpoint, but I left the former site many years ago and have no idea about its current popularity (my only contemporary use is when it pops up in my searches as a sort of wildcard forum).
Sorry, if that's not the usual usage of MSM.
"Entertainment news" is a sub-genre of MSM, typically you see this on the cable news channels or the "opinion" section of a newspaper.
If you get your news from Facebook you aren't getting it from "the MSM" as that term is generally understood. I guess you could coin MSSM for "Main Stream Social Media" to differentiate Twitter from Mastodon (or Reddit from HN?) but honestly I think you can just type out "social media" and not die of fatigue.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're in the category. I don't think anyone is. I'm just poking a little at your self awareness and your lack of respect toward your fellow people. I do think there is an issue with the walled gardens, but I don't think it's the people who use them. It's the psychological effect of having affirmation systems tied to everything you post. I'm sure most people would post waaaaaaaay less "uninteresting" content if it wasn't because of the dopamine chase. I'm guilty of it myself. I try to ask myself if I'm really trying to contribute or if I'm just posting to get likes, and sometimes it prevents me from posting things to social media sites. There are a lot of time where it doesn't though. You may not put much value in Reddits karma system, but what value do you put into your hacker news account? I know from my own experience that it's been fairly healthy for me to create a new account every time I reach a 1000 points. I hope that I'll eventually get to the point where I don't have to do that, but I'm not sure I'm there yet.
It's obviously up to you, but I'd encourage you to not so blatantly disregard other people for what they post on social media. Because social media is a game for our attention, and most of us chase that sweet dopamine rush, even though everything we post on social media sort of disappears after a day and is frankly invisible in the sea of sameness posted by our peers.
That number is proportional to %experts/%non-experts, and is inversely correlated with the size of a subreddit (though the AskHistorians subreddit remains an excellent exception), and is the reason why the NonCredibleDefense is usually more credible than the CredibleDefense.
I personally drifted to hackernews from reddit as a general "reddit", but I find it's probably wise to take with a grain of salt the legal/maths/physics/economics/"anything not related to computer science" opinions of the people here. It's probably a good general rule of thumb to only take advice from experts in their domains.
And acting like “quarantining” people to keep them out of your other online spaces is a good thing? Gross. More access and spread of information helps everyone become more interesting, it spurs innovation, it fosters creativity.
I came to HN after the Reddit API stuff killed Apollo, and though I’ve been here before from search engines, I’m now really getting into the community. It’s been great to see different things and feel inspired to look at how I do thinks in my profession. I wish I had really spent more time here sooner, but fortunately for you I was relegated to my drivel on Reddit until now.
More advertisements? Any advertisements make the site worse. More makes it more worse.
It's so inexpensive to have a website these days, even one that pulls in a substantial number of visitors, that it's hard to make an argument that ads are necessary to pay for hosting.
Once upon a time, I could search for something on Yahoo or Google and get nothing but those kinds of websites in search results, even when some central repository sites like Wikipedia were starting to take root.
Everything changed when the SEO nation attacked, and nobody expected the social media inquisition.
Period true search methods (webrings, curated indexes, portals and early search engines) are gone and so is the fighting chance for this kind of projects.
https://search.marginalia.nu/
Not quite sure what their definition of that is, since I've seen recently updated things. Without CSS? Without JS? Maybe just websites that never make a JS fetch request once they're loaded.
When you don't have to worry about a mob of negativity, you can write far more freely.
Sharing links with MSN and AIM came much later when you could be online significantly more.
The best possible result.
A complete different way to present a personal topic and/or interest than the current one. Right now, it is blogs that trying to gather an audience for whatever purposes, commercial websites, social medias etc. This compared to websites that gathered personal interests, or one specific topic that tries to be self-contained.
I don't know maybe it is the nostalgia, or how I have first interacted with the web, that brings back those contrasts.