Much much better. That's what I'm talking about. Let it breathe.

> If your text hits the side of the browser, fuck off forever.

Wow, this one really is a lot better. Love the Eleanor Roosevelt quote too, she was awesome.

I like both examples, hugely. Though a slight bit more HTML gives yet a better experience IMO:

http://stylebot.me/styles/9425

Hrm... CodePen? Sure:

http://codepen.io/dredmorbius/pen/KpMqqB?editors=110

First one is great (and better) in all respects except line width, but I didn't need that new page to tell me that.

Worse, hard to read since the contrast is so low. Also the author doesn't seem to know about em.

This is awesome. When I had a small college blog running, I build in all in raw HTML with a small bit of CSS.

It loaded quickly, and it was a pleasure to edit. I liked it much better than writing tons of JS based on big web frameworks that often had bugs or non-obvious functionality.

Even with the small college blog, though, the CSS was a bit much. The fact that sites like this exist: http://howtocenterincss.com/ seems like a testament to the idea that CSS is a bit broken.

This site uses javascript and an advertising company to track you.

From the source:

> yes, I know...wanna fight about it?

how did you discover that? on ghostery it doesn't say anything

IIRC ghostery tracks you.

I use NoScript and RequestPolicy (for the moment incompatible with latest version of FF).

i've heard the same thing too, but sometimes ghostery shows stuff noscript doesn't so i use both "just to be safe" but i guess i shouldn't use ghostery?

Only if you opt-in to it.

Probably by viewing the source code and seeing Google analytics stuff.

It does for me. Maybe it's a default setting for you? Anyway, uBlock does show it.

hmmm ublock for me (on opera) doesn't block the frame where the ad is so I see an area on the page with "cannot be displayed" so for me it looked like adblock plus is still the better option; is there one area where ublock better than adblock?

ublock shows it clearly. Ghostery seems to whitelist GA these days?

I don't understand why these need to use swear words and aggressive tone? Wouldn't it work just as well without them?

Because it's motherfucking satire and they wanted to have some fun with that shit, asshole.

There's a middle ground, certainly.

I maintain a site (for a loose definition of "maintain", I suppose) called http://fuckingblocksyntax.com. It's wildly popular in the Objective-C development community, due in no small part to the memorable domain name. But the site itself doesn't contain profanity or over-the-top machismo bravado, and there's a safe-for-work mirror URL at http://goshdarnblocksyntax.com.

A little profanity goes a long way.

And the Objective-C community thanks you for it, Michael. We wouldn't be software developers, however, if we weren't hopeless pedants who lose the forest for the trees and point out that goshdarnblocksyntax.com is MISSING the amazing attention-to-detail favicon from the original domain. Where's the craftsmanship?

I'm never paying for this website again.

Make your own PG version. Doubt it gets as many hits.

No, it wouldn't work as well without them. The swear words are there to wake you up and make you pay attention. Because making simple websites that work should be obvious. But everyone's so distracted by the latest javascript libraries and css frameworks that you have to scream to get your point across.

It's all a continuation of the trend that started with that "Look at these fucking peppers" image, and produced things like "What the fuck should I make for dinner" etc.

I agree. It's offensive to the very people who these sites (apparently) want to change, thus they're less likely to change.

Alternative theory: it's amusing to the people who find it amusing.

Those aren't necessarily the people who are building the reviled types of websites.

Very much disagree. It's written for developers, and I've never met any developer who finds profanity offensive.

And, more importantly, it makes the whole thing much more eye-catching. It's a fun way to a deliver a message - as a vitriolic, spit-flying rant. It would be ineffective if it was friendly and delicate.

I'm a developer and I dislike work environment where swear words are uttered every 10 seconds. Dunno about US, but here in Slovakia swear words are used mostly by teenagers and uneducated people with lousy jobs.

Well, you wouldn't see a rant like this in an actual work environment in the US; that would be wildly inappropriate. But I think most developers are completely okay with this in reading material, once in a while. They certainly wouldn't be offended by it, in the sense of it having a strong emotional effect.

Depending on the company, swearing might not be tolerated at all. At my company it's fairly common, but I only do it when in meetings with people I'm fairly comfortable around (my team, my manager, people I commonly work with).

Clearly you have never worked in the trading industry ;)

I'm a dev in the US, I really dislike profanity (especially in excess), and in most work settings, it's completely not-OK. I'm not saying it should be "friendly and delicate", just not gratuitously shoving in profanity every other word.

It's funny.

A little too primitive humor for my taste.

Was this made by Eric Myers? It looks like part of his (bitter) Fluent Conference presentation.

Beautiful!

Give it a "margin: 1in" and that'd be perfect.

I love simplicity.