The Haus of Talk Thread

[QubicTom]

The next spaceX launch is in a few minutes, and I'm super anxious! Lots of fog on the rocket launch pad and there are 3 meter swells in the Pacific ocean where the landing barge is waiting. My poor heart is pounding (don't be a rocket nerd, kids!)

Link to live launch webcast (should start in a few minutes): Oh man nerves

[Leet]

i mean there are some legitimately terrible works that you really shouldnt be supporting but yeah i can see where youre coming from

It's still no one business if one does happen to be supporting such a "legitimately terrible" work. No point in making that person feel terrible for liking something most don't, even if it's for good reason.

even if said work is contributing to harming people? bc i can think of at least one franchise's fanbase full of people who are like "well i recognize the fact that this work has terrifying ramifications and is marketing itself at a young audience with the purpose of manipulating them, but ill keep giving them free advertisement anyway oh well ^_^" and it is pain

you gotta draw the line somewhere i think.

[Sorel]

Believe it or not but almost anything nowadays tries to manipulate you in a way.

[Piter Lauchy]

i mean there are some legitimately terrible works that you really shouldnt be supporting but yeah i can see where youre coming from

It's still no one business if one does happen to be supporting such a "legitimately terrible" work. No point in making that person feel terrible for liking something most don't, even if it's for good reason.

even if said work is contributing to harming people? bc i can think of at least one franchise's fanbase full of people who are like "well i recognize the fact that this work has terrifying ramifications and is marketing itself at a young audience with the purpose of manipulating them, but ill keep giving them free advertisement anyway oh well ^_^" and it is pain

you gotta draw the line somewhere i think.

Hm, that's a difficult topic. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "harming people". Your example isn't too clear on that.
If you're talking about stuff that has terrible messages that no one objectively should follow, I can see where you're coming from, but I still think that censorship or attacking the supporters isn't the right way. No one's gonna go "Oh, thanks for enlightening me!" if you trashtalk the stuff they're a fan of.

[Mata Hari]

I'm afraid because I just went to wash my hands and I don't even remember why

[Mata Hari]

I spent a lot of time today and yesterday reading Megg, Mogg & Owl and I feel like my mind has broken a little bit

[Bean]

Well, I'm glad last night was the night where I didn't get a lot of sleep. This means I should get a decent amount tonight to be ready for an interview tomorrow.

[tangy]

74 days.

[Mata Hari]

Well, I'm glad last night was the night where I didn't get a lot of sleep. This means I should get a decent amount tonight to be ready for an interview tomorrow.

That's not how it works and you know it.

[Leet]

Hm, that's a difficult topic. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "harming people". Your example isn't too clear on that.
If you're talking about stuff that has terrible messages that no one objectively should follow, I can see where you're coming from, but I still think that censorship or attacking the supporters isn't the right way. No one's gonna go "Oh, thanks for enlightening me!" if you trashtalk the stuff they're a fan of.

i think a show with pedophilic undertones that markets itself at children with the intent of portraying to them that an ideal goal for a young girl is to join an abusive entertainment industry is pretty low

[Sorel]

Can't you just say the name already because I still have no idea what you're talking about.

[raekuul]

talk about the new spoiler tags

[ispoiler]Eragon is a Dragon Rider.[/ispoiler]

Hm, yeah, I can see how it would be easy to get spoiled on something just by moving your mouse around. Maybe for actually spoilery stuff it should be in a nested ispoiler (like the above).

[Learning-Timebuster]

im a fan of the new spoiler tags but i wonder how well they translate to mobile interfaces

[Alice]

im a fan of the new spoiler tags but i wonder how well they translate to mobile interfaces

I didn't test them on mobile but I think the method I'm using should work just fine. I believe mobile devices count tapping an object as hovering over it.

I am curious though. How many people prefer them this way as opposed to the old way and how many would prefer the click to open/close method?

[momo]

i prefer the click to show

[freakin whatzit]

i think either way's fine, but i'm leaning towards the new spoiler. not having to click makes things a little easier.

[TheFinalSentinel]

Click to show I'd say is definitely far better.

[Telamon]

I think the new spoilers are the worst thing since unsliced bread.

[alleightbits]

At least "click to show" works the same for both desktop and mobile. On my tablet, tapping does open it, but tapping any part of the screen afterwards closes it.

[raekuul]

Hover To Show actually has the same "accidental viewing" problem as ispoiler currently does.

For example, hovering over any part of this black bar reveals the entirety of this spoiled message, which if you have no prior knowledge about the fact that THE PRINCESS IS IN ANOTHER CASTLE means you're forced to see it if the poster is careless.

Then again, split ispoilers somewhat get around this problem. By properly dividing the ispoiler, the fact that

MORTIMER MCMIRE IS THE GRAND INTELLECT

remains relatively unspoiled.

Unfortunately, you can't actually nest this iteration of block spoilers like you can a block and an inline, so you'd have to do this sort of shenaniganry to prevent accidental spoilage that [ispoiler]JULIUS CAESAR INVADED ROME[/ispoiler]

with all that said, I prefer using block spoilers to hide stuff other people may or may not want to see (off-topic stuff, semi-spoilery stuff that I want to discuss that the thread owner should be left blind to, or huge long images), and ispoilers for actual spoiler stuff.

E: Getting ninja'd by about seven people made my comment nonsensical.

[freakin whatzit]

i do think it should be colored differently to make it stand out more, like

this spoiler

, which is all black, or the old one which is all white. the new one kinda blends in too much and is harder to notice if you're skimming through. (which is when you'd be most likely to hover over it by accident.)

[Alice]

At least "click to show" works the same for both desktop and mobile. On my tablet, tapping does open it, but tapping any part of the screen afterwards closes it.

That's expected behavior. It relies on CSS's hover selector meaning it'll only be open so long as your cursor is over it. With a tablet (and mobile I believe) if you tap it then it opens and your browser counts it as being hovered over.

i do think it should be colored differently to make it stand out more, like

this spoiler

, which is all black, or the old one which is all white. the new one kinda blends in too much and is harder to notice if you're skimming through. (which is when you'd be most likely to hover over it by accident.)

The color is definitely on me. I wrote the initial code in JSFiddle so I needed to add in some quick coloring and borders so it wasn't just black words on a white background and nothing else. That's actually really easy to change though and I should be able to just go look at the basic colors in the old spoiler and change it to those.

Also I did realize one issue with these hover spoilers that I think most people would find kinda irritating. If a spoiler is long enough that you'd need to scroll the header for it off-screen then if you accidentally quit mousing over it you have to scroll back up and re-open it.

[Piter Lauchy]

Why... don't we just go back to the way it was and all promise to be good and not break the site?

[Pikabread]

maybe we just shouldnt think about it so much

[Argumentable]

Why... don't we just go back to the way it was and all promise to be good and not break the site?

Cause I don't trust you guys and you've already proven (to an extent) you can't just not quote it over and over. No, not you specifically

I might change my mind later