SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Is it because websites are converging on what boosts search rank? Or maybe there is a consolidation in the frameworks used to build web sites? Perhaps users gravitate to using sites whose layouts are "familiar"?
Yes, websites really are starting to look more similar:
Over the past few years, articles and blog posts have started to ask some version of the same question: "Why are all websites starting to look the same?"
These posts usually point out some common design elements, from large images with superimposed text, to hamburger menus, which are those three horizontal lines that, when clicked, reveal a list of page options to choose from.
My colleagues Bardia Doosti, David Crandall, Norman Su and I were studying the history of the web when we started to notice these posts cropping up. None of the authors had done any sort of empirical study, though. It was more of a hunch they had.
We decided to investigate the claim to see if there were any truth to the notion that websites are starting to look the same and, if so, explore why this has been happening. So we ran a series of data mining studies that scrutinized nearly 200,000 images across 10,000 websites.
[...] This outsize power is part a larger story of consolidation in the tech industry—one that certainly could be a cause for concern. We believe aesthetic consolidation should be critically examined as well.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday May 14 2020, @04:02PM (9 children)
... A whole buncha websites looked kind of the same at the advent of Web 2.0.
They all looked kind of the same during the dot-com crash.
They all looked kind of the same during the tech bubble.
They all looked kind of the same at the start of the Internet.
Now, modern maintained sites today generally don't look the same as they did at the start of the Internet. Except for some that make a point [motherfuckingwebsite.com]. But generally things are tried, become popular, then everybody starts doing them, then they all look the same. Except for the few that aren't, and they either go static / die, or other people see it become popular and start using the features of it.
And... that's pretty much the way it has been for all eternity. Why do books all look sort of the same? Why did scrolls look sort of the same? Why did cave drawings.....
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hendrikboom on Thursday May 14 2020, @07:28PM (8 children)
My site ( http://topoi.pooq.com/hendrik [pooq.com] ) looks a lot like the motherfucking website.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2020, @02:47AM (1 child)
God DAMN your site is close to perfect.
Some typos but whatever.
I wish I was a bit older and had been a colleague of yours; I bet it would've been fun to work on math and programming problems together. Ah well!
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday May 21 2020, @08:37PM
Let me know about the typos so I can fix them, please. You can email me. hendrik@topoi.pooq.com
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2020, @05:46AM (2 children)
Your page on "How I became a constructivist." contains a number of interesting things. One problem, however, is that you say "classical P or Q can more or less be expressed intuitionistically as not (not P and not Q). (This is an example of the double-negation interpretation in action)." This is one of the roughest ways I have ever seen double negation introduction and De Morgan's Laws used in reference to intuitionistic logic with almost no introduction. Those two topics are such ungodly minefields that just throwing them out there just took me by such surprise that I literally said "Oh no" out loud. I usually save those relationships until a lot of other ground is covered to prevent such reactions. Not the least of which is that interdefinability of operators nor double negation elimination hold in an intuitionistic system.
Although I do wonder, are you any or all of: a dialetheist, negation is failure, paraconsistent, infinite-valued logician, Logic of Paradox, fuzzy logician, Kripke, or Heyting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2020, @09:15AM (1 child)
Just to be clear, that list isn't exhaustive and I removed some of the more advanced and specific options off there. But I wanted to keep people new to the topic from being completely overwhelmed and figured if you knew where you landed in one of the other related systems and concepts, such as CoL or Kleene, or BHK (almost got started listing them again), then you'd volunteer it.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday May 21 2020, @03:28AM
I have no idea.
-- hendrik
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 16 2020, @04:25AM (2 children)
Responding to you directly to increase you chances of seeing it. I reread my comment and would like to apologize if I offended you. The language I used may have been interpreted as being more insulting than I intended when I submitted it. Not to excuse it but to explain, I was probably in more shock than I realized and coupled with other factors, including the failure to account for how connotation or anonymity would affect how my words could be interpreted. I can see those words connoting an attempt to criticize instead of its purpose of cautioning and getting your perspective on the additional areas of non-classical logic. I again apologize for any insult perceived and I will endeavor to not repeat such actions in the future with others and yourself.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday May 21 2020, @03:43AM (1 child)
I have no idea what you said that you think I might have taken offense at, and whatever it was I didn't, so don't worry about it. Nor do I even know who you are, since you identify as an anonymous coward.
If you want to discuss further, go ahead. I tend not to be too much concerned with the hyperfine analysis that the metametamathematicians are currently doing. But I kind of like intuitionistic type theory, though I find it inconveniently difficult to use conveniently.
I'm currently trying to figure out topos theory and to do a binding for openGL on Racket. Some days I'd be hard-pressed to know which is more difficult.
-- hendrik
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2020, @05:43AM
The language was stronger sounding on second read than I intended but I am glad to hear no offense was taken. Some of us still have a sense of decency on the internet, after all.
The second depends on if you are talking about Grothendieck or elementary topos. Topos is quite a bit out of my area of expertise, but I tend to think of it sort of intuitionisticly when I run into it. The way I explain the difference, in a standard JTB framework, between classical logic and intuitionistic logic, is that the former is "truth preserving" and the latter is "knowledge preserving" (This is because it is actually justification preserving with truth coming along for the ride, so to speak. Although the latter is also considered knowledge preserving under different systems as well). In Topos, you basically trying to find out where it is true. The intuitionistic justification in topos theory is knowing the location, so to speak, and the more specific the location you have identified, the better you know it through better justification.
Regardless, maybe give https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.bia/1403013939#toc [projecteuclid.org] a gander. IIRC, that is where a colleague recommended people start the last time I asked.