"Google wants to kill the URL"
"People have a really hard time understanding URLs" is not a good enough reason to get rid of URLs
To this day, I refuse to use an AMP specific webpage as it breaks the open web. When I'm presented with an AMP link, I edit the URL to remove that component so I get the full page. "Safe" URLs will similarly cater to Google interests and I will not be using it
If other vendors go along with this, I'll write my own browser if I have to
@cypnk write an HTML 2.0 with RFCs browser, mandate that all URLs that it accesses are in the format: http(s)://(optional hostname.)domain.tld/~(rest of URL)
First, I don't think a "technical lead" (bullshit buzzword) shouldn't say or support shit like ""People have a really hard time understanding URLs".
Second, it's just the usual "replace thing a with thing b" method occurring all the time. https://frankchimero.com/writing/everything-easy-is-hard-again/
@lerk Yes, exactly! This is a weird turnaround
Who comes up with this shit? I have never come across a single person who didn't understand what a URL is. Maybe they didn't know it was called a URL but they know you type something.com to get to the site of whatever thing.
@cypnk Any browser that does not let me use URLs is a browser that I will never use. And considering how Google is behind this scheme, any browser that goes along with this plan is a browser I will never use, recommend, or even talk about. The Alphabet Panopticon is large enough without letting Google sneak its tendrils into how we have fundamentally accessed sites for decades.
@cypnk "People have a really hard time understanding URLs"
Well, fuck, people have a really hard time understanding nuclear physics. Let's get rid of all the nuclear research and nuclear power stations and go back to coal and oil.
Oh, wait... Someone IS actually proposing exactly that.
@strypey @cypnk Nuclear power is actually the cleanest and cheapest source of energy available to date.
Although, I must admit that there are safety concerns, but that's purely thanks to the fact that cold war was needed to be kept cold, and then ever power-hungry military industrial complex took hold of nuclear research.
There were two projects for fission reactors in the 1950s: light water reactors (typical for today, using Uranium cycle) and molten salt reactors. And while both were successful at generating power (Oak Ridge molten salt testbed, for example ran for five years producing around 7.5 MW), US Military tipped the scale in favor of light water reactors, because this type of reactors were able to breed Plutonium which was needed for nuclear weapon programme.
Now, MSRs look awesome. They are a lot safer, you can't breed weapons-grade material on them, they run use Thorium-Uranium cycle (Th is abundant compared to U), and they also can burn a lot of BS after LWRs. Google them.
Prescriptive measures don't get us anywhere. People want lights on, water boiled, homes heated, engines running and computers computing. That's all they care about, and that's not about to change.
Solar towers look great, I like them, they are kinda easy and cheap to build - all you need is a huge swath of land and couple thousand mirrors. The question is - will they be able to feed major cities like New York or Moscow or Tokyo?
@strypey @cypnk so you are proposing rebuilding whole cities so they consume less energy, that's wonderful. But you will actually lose more energy in the process of rebuilding. It's like buying an electric car while you have your petroleum car running: it's only environmentally feasible if your old car is actually, truly FUBAR, else - you should keep it.
@cypnk I apologize in for derailing the conversation, I was not making an energy production point, I was making "haha, let's get rid of basic necessity of the modren world because of public ignorance" point.
And how it is actually coming to that judging by today's politics.
@drequivalent No worries, I learned something new today. My suggestion for anyone in my mentions is to keep me tagged when in doubt. Either I’ll learn something or I can ignore, but I don’t want to lose the opportunity regardless
@cypnk Slight troll: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Open+web&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 The page "Open web" does not exist. The web without AMP still has many problems, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_LibreJS
@cypnk AMP is an open standard. How does it break the open web?
@tw This is preferential for Google’s content analysis (in order for better search placement) which artificially constrains designs and page strictures, leaving presentation looking similar or largely the same
The “standard” is not the problem. Implementing it for the sake of a single entity is a big problem, no matter their market penetration
Office Open XML also became an ISO standard because Microsoft Office is widespread. AMP is the same for the web
@cypnk I do the same thing! I totally can't stand the AMP versions — they always look super weird to me. Not like a real website at all.
@cypnk Didn't they say for years that people don't need URLs since most use search anyway? (Which sadly is true - I've even given up to tell my partner to not put URLs into the damn search field by now.)
I assume that Google wants to get rid of URLs because that's one of the things they don't control yet.
@galaxis Yup. This is to control access to that last bit users can still change manually
People are people and sometimes old habits are hard to get rid of
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!