Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:19:49 -0400, Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32 at yahoo.com>  
wrote:

>> Apparently not.  
>> http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/
>>
>> I'm perfectly willing to give up on 1-2% of Internet users who have JS  
>> disabled.
>
>   I use NoScript, so by default my JS is disabled for 99% of the sites I  
> go to. That means you'll give up on me? Hmm :(

Yep.  Sorry to be harsh about it, but if you really don't want to use my  
application the way it's intended, I have no way of helping you.

>> No, it *is* the point.  As a web developer, javascript is used by the  
>> vast majority of users, so I assume it can be used.  If you don't like  
>> that, I guess that's too bad for you, you may go find content  
>> elsewhere.  It's not worth my time to cater to you.
>
>   Unfortunately I need to disagree with you there. JS although is nice  
> sometimes, I find more often a pain in the butt rather than a help.  
> NoScript shows on quite a few sites that they have some 10 or 20 sites  
> they reference JS scripts from, which doesn't make sense. half of those  
> sites tend to be statistic gathering sites, which I don't particularly  
> trust. Actually I don't trust a lot of sites.

In the case of my web apps, they do *not* pull JS from other sites.  I  
understand and sympathize with your rationale.  It's just not enough,  
however, to make web developers who want their site to appear a certain  
way care about the market share that your opinion represents.  I'm  
perfectly willing to lose 1-2% of users in order to *not* test browsers in  
all kinds of weird configurations.  It's the same reason most web sites  
test only with the major browsers.

>> It's like saying you think cell phones are evil, and refuse to get  
>> one.  But then complain that there are no pay phones for you to use,  
>> and demand businesses install pay phones in case people like you want  
>> to use them.
>
>   Maybe... I consider myself simple and practical; I use features and  
> items that serve their purpose (Usually specific). I enjoy a simple cell  
> phone, no bells, no whistles. Give me access to dialing a number, hold a  
> small list of names and numbers I dial recently or enter in, time and  
> date. That's all I ever want. Instead they are pushing cell phones that  
> are actually mini-computers (Android and smart phones); Nothing wrong  
> with that I guess, but I just want a phone, nothing special.
>
>   In the same regard you can compare that people could refuse to use a  
> phone booth unless it has a computer hooked up, internet access, use it  
> to check email and browse while you talk, or doesn't allow you to send  
> text messages and enter a quarter to send it, and doesn't have a camera  
> you can snap a picture of yourself to show how good or drunk you are to  
> your friends.

This situation (where payphones were obsolete) existed long before the  
smartphone craze.

-Steve