Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.wa2pimkxeav7ka at localhost.localdomain...
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:27:30 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
>
>> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.wa1432xjeav7ka at localhost.localdomain...
>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:41:53 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I
>>>> think
>>>> they tried to do some highly misguided and even more poorly implemented
>>>> hack
>>>> (which they no-doubt thought was clever) for dealing with *cough* "old"
>>>> *cough* browsers by inserting a meta redirect to a hardcoded URL, and
>>>> then
>>>> used JS to disable the meta redirect. If that's the case, I don't know
>>>> how
>>>> the fuck they managed to convince themselves that make one drop of 
>>>> sense.
>>>
>>> It could be that they don't care to cater to people who hate JS.  There
>>> aren't that many of you.
>>>
>>
>> There are enough.
>
> 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.
>

Does nobody understand basic statistics?

First of all, 1-2% is a *hell* of a *LOT* of people. Don't be fooled by the 
seemingly small number: It's a percentage and it's out of a *very* large 
population. So 1-2% is still *huge*.

Secondly, I don't believe for a minute that such figures accurately 
represent *all* non-JS users:

A. Most non-JS users *do* occasionally switch JS on when they need to via 
NoScript, etc. So that right there is *guaranteed* to leave the results 
biased towards the "use JS" side.

B. Look at audience: That's *Yahoo*. How many of the technical people you 
know use Yahoo? Yahoo is primarily an "Average Joe" site, but disabling 
JavaScript is a power-user thing. It's not a representative sample, and it 
*certainly* can't be assumed to be applicable to something like Dr. Dobbs.

C. Things such as Google Analytics are based on JS. So right there I have 
questions about whether or not such things accurately record all non-JS 
users in the first place.


>> And it's beside the point anyway. Things that don't need
>> JS sholdn't be using JS anyway, regardless of whether you hate it or have
>> enough brain damage to think it's the greatest thing since the 
>> transistor.
>
> 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.
>

And it's not worth my time to use your piece of shit excuse for a site.