48309248302
48309248302 on Hacker News
Sometimes essential medication costs USD $100,000 per year or more.
I guess it depends on what you're building. For me the graphql is one of the most useful features. I've only used Next a little, but much prefer Gatsby. I don't think Next is bad though.
> Gatsby can use TS, but you need to set it up
I'm not sure how long ago you tried Gatsby, but TypeScript doesn't require setup anymore. Just change the file extensions to .tsx/.ts and it works. It also does incremental builds.
Gatsby handles pages in src/pages the same way except it doesn't use placeholders in the filenames. You generate dynamic pages by writing a function. Check out these videos.
https://egghead.io/courses/why-gatsby-uses-graphql-1c319a1c
Do you think that Wikipedia doesn't want traffic? When people land on Wikipedia it creates brand recognition and the opportunity for them to ask for support from those visitors, which is what keeps Wikipedia going. Some of those users will edit pages while they are there.
What Google is doing is terrible, especially for smaller sites. Those sites depend on traffic to survive.
AMP makes things even worse, because now the visitors never actually go to the website's own independent servers, even if "the content" loads, and Google dictates how the sites have to be built. Web publishers are in the process of losing control of their websites and independence.
I'm not sure what it has to do with breaking up Google. I'm just saying that they are leading users to think that Google will stop tracking them if they turn on Google's private browsing mode.
The average user doesn't know what private browsing really mode means. If Google says you are in private browsing mode and that some other "websites and ISPs" might still track you, they aren't being clear that Google itself is still knowingly tracking you.
I think that would be a disingenuous argument from Google. Google is directly receiving the analytics data and then feeding only a portion of it to the website. They know that users are easily confused and don't fully understand that one Google product doesn't respect another Google product's "privacy" settings. Most of them probably don't even know what Google Analytics is or how Google makes money by tracking them.
Google is a company. Their tracking code isn't a website. It doesn't mention to users that that their private browsing mode doesn't actually protect users from their other products.
Google is not the ambiguous other "websites and ISPs." They are the ones making the claim that you are in private mode with a Google product, even though you aren't.
Users don't know how things work. They read that as if Google is respecting privacy, not tracking everything they do.
It's hard to make that argument when you control the browsing device that tells users that they are in private mode, but then identify specific devices and users from the other end of the network with your other product.
The point there is that is it not supported by Mozilla. Google has strong-armed publishers into implementing their websites in a restricted Google format that speeds up websites just for Google Chrome and Google Chromium-based browsers. It's an unethical power grab by Google on multiple levels.
Being penalized in the search results is outright coercion, not an incentive.
It only works in Chrome. The Web has now been split in two, and you now have to use Google Chrome to be on the faster version. Google is shamefully abusing its power in several places here.
They have been trying to make it so that users can't tell if they are on real webpages or AMP pages, and it looks like they finally implemented it. AMP is about Google, tracking, and ads, not page speed, even if they have convinced many of their engineers that it's about page speed.
Web publishers don't necessarily want their content decoupled from their own servers, but they don't have a choice now if they depend on traffic from Google.
AMP is a threat to the entire Web itself. It forcibly takes control away from web publishers and attempts to turn the Web into a Google product.
Type "amp sucks" into a search engine to find out more.
Many people use tools to block third party JS from loading. AMP can't be called privacy-friendly while making it extremely difficult to use when tracking (AMP Analytics) is blocked. The 8-second delay happens to me every time I accidentally click an AMP URL in my browser.
There are legitimate (privacy/speed) reasons to not load AMP's JavaScript while still not turning of JavaScript entirely. Google does have the capability to know when you're on an AMP page, because the JS loads from ampproject.org, which is registered by Google.
An 8-second delay seems like an intentional "bug" to coerce users to turn on JavaScript (and advertising).
Google can't tell if a link has been clicked if JavaScript is off and the `ping` attribute is removed, so AMP removes privacy there.
By forcing web publishers to host their content on a Google cache, they lose their server-side logging and the ability to determine how they set up they way they serve their own sites.
Also, why do you artificially slow page loads on AMP pages to 8 seconds when JavaScript is disabled? That is a privacy issue.
There is a difference between the web publisher controlling that abstraction and a web publisher that has been strong armed into one abstraction or another.
It's not written like someone trying to kick a hornet's nest. It's written like someone who has been conditioned inside of a culture that has begun to view the Web as a Google product on some level.
That isn't a main reason. People are going to use the internet either way. Google is making a power grab by breaking web standards (embrace, extend, extinguish), and companies like Cloudflare are enabling them.
Mozilla has marked Signed HTTP Exchanges as harmful.
1) I want full control over my servers and to not be penalized in search engines for not hosting my sites on Google. Where are the server-side logs?
2) I want full control over how I publish my sites with real web standards. AMP is not a web standard, it's a Google format that they are strong-arming people into using.
3) Mozilla considers Signed HTTP Exchanges harmful. This technology is as bad as what Microsoft was doing with IE in the old days.
4) I don't publish on Github pages, but if I did, I would still have a choice over which servers I put the sites on.
5) There shouldn't be a single company (or few companies) that dictates how we publish online.
6) Shame on the people who are splitting the web with this fake-opensource technology. There's even a Google engineer over here referring to the Web like it's a Google product. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19631136
Brussels sprouts are good for you. AMP is more like medical experiments performed on you during an alien abduction.
This sounds terrible. Does it mean that browsers will begin lying to users and say that the users are visiting the website's server when they are really visiting a restricted version of the website that is hosted in Google's cache? I don't want my content restricted or hosted in Google's cache.
AMP doesn't load in a privacy sensitive way. It's on Google's servers and it takes many seconds to load if you have JavaScript disabled.
Also, the feature only works on Google Chrome and possibly Edge, which gives another point to the article below.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...
AMP is a fundamentally bad idea that needs to disappear.
Edit: Mozilla has marked Signed HTTP Exchanges as harmful.
https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
You can still do that in Firefox. It's in the settings.