Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more nicboobees's comments login

God forbid we should actually interact with our fellow humans.

I guess the next step down this path is to replace waiters etc with robots - again reducing the amount you have to interact with other humans.

When I get in a taxi, I actually enjoy talking to the driver, asking about the local area, the news, and making both our days a tiny bit more interesting.

As the world population increases, and cities grow and grow I can only see this getting worse - millions of humans bunched together, and all of them scared to talk to each other.

(In case you hadn't guessed I'm not a city person)


I find that it depends quite heavily on the city in question. I live in Boston, where a lot of folks do generally keep to themselves, and it does suck sometimes (if I could get a good gig in a city that wasn't worse--hello, New York, hello, San Francisco--I would), but there are plenty of cities that emphatically don't feel this way. Portland, Oregon comes to mind. Both Dublin and Galway, in Ireland, too.


Another example of doing it wrong is when the form splits the cc number into 4 separate boxes, and automatically skips along merrily to the next box as you type it in. This might look nice and everything, but usually breaks if you try to backspace your entry, or paste etc


Also, dealing with AMEX screws up a lot of forms.

15 numbers, 4 then 6 then 5. Yes, only 3 groups. And the CVV2/CVC2/CID is on the front and four digits, not three.


I wonder if this has any thing to do with why amex was so infrequently an available payment option online for so long...


I doubt it. A more probable reason is the higher transaction fee charged by Amex (3.5% compared to 2%).


The demo form does seem to handle backspacing and pasting correctly.

I do know a LOT of places where this gets missed, and a typo goes to the next field, but reflexive backspace correction also fails.


Don't forget the group of users who can move stories around adding or removing votes from them at will. I'm sure there's been a lot of "Put this on the front page please" favors done for friends.


If you're going to put adverts on your site, always put them within an iframe, pointed at a separate "adverts" only domain. This will ensure they can't execute javascript within your own website context.


Unfortunately it looks like you aren't supposed to do that with Google AdSense: https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/3394713

> Is it violating program policy if I place ads on iframe webpages in my software?

> Yes, it does violate our policies. Firstly, you’re not allowed to place ads in a frame within another page. Exceptions to our policies are permitted only with authorization from Google for the valid use of iframes. Secondly, you’re not allowed to put ads in your software, e.g., if you control both a website with ads and an app that loads that website, we will take action against it.


Yeah adsense is amongst the most restrictive products out there, and the one without any support etc. Wouldn't recommend it.

Talking of which, where are the startups challenging adsense's dominance?


This is a very good tip (for security) and I don't see it used anywhere yet. Should be enforced.


Does it have to have a different domain or would a `src`-less iframe also work? You'd have to write the ad code into the iframe from the outer page, but that's not hard.


On the video, it is mentioned that the advertisements are in a frame.


Is the iframe pointed at a separate domain though? This is crucial to enforce the same origin security within javascript.


You could also make use of the sandbox[0] attribute, but that will really only benefit IE10+ users (and chrome, ff, others.)

[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/if...


It's there to suggest that he agrees completely with the article, and if you disagree with any of it, you must be crazy.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: