Skip navigation
Help

Online chat

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /var/www/vhosts/sayforward.com/subdomains/recorder/httpdocs/modules/taxonomy/taxonomy.pages.inc on line 33.

Emoji; they've conquered the world, featured in novels, and more recently they've allowed us to track Twitter's mood in real time. Now, a new app for iPhone automatically generates another internet staple, ASCII art, using only emoji. Emojify lets you take photos with your phone's camera, or pull existing images from your camera roll, and replaces the pixels with emoji. Once you've selected your photo, you'll be able to control image size (ranging up to 16-megapixel files for poster-sized prints) and contrast before exporting or sharing your creation.

0
Your rating: None
Original author: 
samzenpus

benrothke writes "When I first heard about the book The Death of the Internet, it had all the trappings of a second-rate book; a histrionic title and the fact that it had nearly 50 contributors. I have seen far too many books that are pasted together by myriad disparate authors, creating a jerry-rigged book with an ISBN, but little value or substance. The only negative thing about the book is the over the top title, which I think detracts from the important message that is pervasive in it. Other than that, the book is a fascinating read. Editor Markus Jakobsson (Principal Scientist for Consumer Security at PayPal) was able to take the collected wisdom from a large cross-section of expert researchers and engineers, from different countries and nationalities, academic and corporate environments, and create an invaluable and unique reference." Read below for the rest of Ben's review.

Share on Google+

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

0
Your rating: None

via publicintelligence.net

First used by the military in the 1990s, online chat systems like IRC have become an indispensable part of tactical communication. Public Intelligence has collected a series of documents about how the protocol is used for calling in support, targeting enemies, and checking in on orders. While chat allows for quick communication even with limited bandwidth, it presents the same challenges civilians see: short messages can be ambiguous or confusing, as in one case where a "large band of hungry camels" ended up being reported as a potential enemy vehicle sighting until the issue was cleared up.

Continue reading…

0
Your rating: None

It's been six years since I wrote Discussions: Flat or Threaded? and, despite a bunch of evolution on the web since then, my opinion on this has not fundamentally changed.

If anything, my opinion has strengthened based on the observed data: precious few threaded discussion models survive on the web. Putting aside Usenet as a relic and artifact of the past, it is rare to find threaded discussions of any kind on the web today; for web discussion communities that are more than ten years old, the vast majority are flat as a pancake.

I'm game for trying anything new, I mean, I even tried Google Wave. But the more I've used threaded discussions of any variety, the less I like them. I find precious few redeeming qualities, while threading tends to break crucial parts of discussion like reading and replying in deep, fundamental, unfixable ways. I have yet to discover a threaded discussion design that doesn't eventually make me hate it, and myself.

A part of me says this is software Darwinism in action: threaded discussion is ultimately too complex to survive on the public Internet.

Hacker-news-threading

Before threaded discussion fans bring out their pitchforks and torches, I fully acknowledge that aspects of threading can be useful in certain specific situations. I will get to that. I know I'm probably wasting my time even attempting to say this, but please: keep reading before commenting. Ideally, read the whole article before commenting. Like Parappa, I gotta believe!

Before I defend threaded discussion, let's enumerate the many problems it brings to the table:

  1. It's a tree.

    Poems about trees are indeed lovely, as Joyce Kilmer promised us, but data of any kind represented as a tree … isn't. Rigid hierarchy is generally not how the human mind works, and the strict parent-child relationship it enforces is particularly terrible for fluid human group discussion. Browsing a tree is complicated, because you have to constantly think about what level you're at, what's expanded, what's collapsed … there's always this looming existential crisis of where the heck am I? Discussion trees force me to spend too much time mentally managing that two-dimensional tree more than the underlying discussion.

  2. Where did that reply go?

    In a threaded discussion, replies can arrive any place in the tree at any time. How do you know if there are new replies? Where do you find them? Only if you happen to be browsing the tree at the right place at the right time. It's annoying to follow discussions over time when new posts keep popping up anywhere in the middle of the big reply tree. And God help you if you accidentally reply at the wrong level of the tree; then you're suddenly talking to the wrong person, or maybe nobody at all. For that matter, it absolutely kills me that there might be amazing, insightful responses buried somewhere in the middle of a reply chain that I will never be able to find. Most of all, it just makes me want to leave and never come back.

  3. It pushes discussion off your screen.

    So the first reply is indented under the post. Fair enough; how else would you know that one post is a reply to another post? But this indentation game doesn't ever end. Reply long and hard enough and you've either made the content column impossibly narrow, or you've pushed the content to exit, stage right. That's how endless pedantic responses-to-responses ruin the discussion for everyone. I find that in the "indent everything to the right" game, there are no winners, only losers. It is natural to scroll down on the web, but it is utterly unnatural to scroll right. Indentation takes the discussion in the wrong direction.

  4. You're talking to everyone.

    You think because you clicked "reply" and your post is indented under the person you're replying to, that your post is talking only to that person? That's so romantic. Maybe the two of you should get a room. A special, private room at the far, far, far, far, far right of that threaded discussion. This illusion that you are talking to one other person ends up harming the discussion for everyone by polluting the tree with these massive narrow branches that are constantly in the way.

    At an absolute minimum you're addressing everyone else in that discussion, but in reality, you're talking to anyone who will listen, for all time. Composing your reply as if it is a reply to just one person is a quaint artifact of a world that doesn't exist any more. Every public post you make on the Internet, reply or not, is actually talking to everyone who will ever read it. It'd be helpful if the systems we used for discussion made that clear, rather than maintaining this harmful pretense of private conversations in a public space.

  5. I just want to scroll down.

    Reddit (and to a lesser extent, Hacker News) are probably the best known examples of threaded comments applied to a large audience. While I find Reddit so much more tolerable than the bad old days of Digg, I can still barely force myself to wade through the discussions there, because it's so much darn work. As a lazy reader, I feel I've already done my part by deciding to enter the thread; after that all I should need to do is scroll or swipe down.

    Take what's on the top of reddit right now. It's a cool picture; who wouldn't want to meet Steve Martin and Morgan Freeman? But what's the context? Who is this kid? How did he get so lucky? To find out, I need to collapse and suppress dozens of random meaningless tangents, and the replies-to-tangents, by clicking the little minus symbol next to each one. So that's what I'm doing: reading a little, deciding that tangent is not useful or interesting, and clicking it to get rid of it. Then I arrive at the end and find out that information wasn't even in the topic, or at least I couldn't find it. I'm OK with scrolling down to find information and/or entertainment, to a point. What I object to is the menial labor of collapsing and expanding threaded portions of the topic as I read. Despite what the people posting them might think, those tangents aren't so terribly important that they're worth making me, and every other reader, act on them.

Full bore, no-holds-barred threading is an unmitigated usability disaster for discussion, everywhere I've encountered it. But what if we didn't commit to this idea of threaded discussion quite so wholeheartedly?

The most important guidance for non-destructive use of threading is to put a hard cap on the level of replies that you allow. Although Stack Exchange is not a discussion system – it's actually the opposite of a discussion system, which we have to explain to people all the time – we did allow, in essence, one level of threading. There are questions and answers, yes, but underneath each of those, in smaller type, are the comments.

Stack-exchange-threading

Now there's a bunch of hard-core discussion sociology here that I don't want to get into, like different rules for comments, special limitations for comments, only showing the top n of comments by default, and so forth. What matters is that we allow one level of replies and that's it. Want to reply to a comment? You can, but it'll be at the same level. You can go no deeper. This is by design, but remember: Stack Exchange is not a discussion system. It's a question and answer system. If you build your Q&A system like a discussion system, it will devolve into Yahoo Answers, or even worse, Quora. Just kidding Quora. You're great.

Would Hacker News be a better place for discussion if they capped reply level? Would Reddit? From my perspective as a poor, harried reader and very occasional participant, absolutely. There are many chronic problems with threaded discussion, but capping reply depth is the easiest way to take a giant step in the right direction.

Another idea is to let posts bring their context with them. This is one of the things that Twitter, the company that always does everything wrong and succeeds anyway, gets … shockingly right out of the gate. When I view one of my tweets, it can stand alone, as it should. But it can also bring some context along with it on demand:

Twitter-threading

Here you can see how my tweet can be expanded with a direct link or click to show the necessary context for the conversation. But it'll only show three levels: the post, my reply to the post, and replies to my post. This idea that tweets – and thus, conversations – should be mostly standalone is not well understood, but it illustrates how Twitter got the original concept so fundamentally right. I guess that's why they can get away with the terrible execution.

I believe selective and judicious use of threading is the only way it can work for discussion. You should be wary of threading as a general purpose solution for human discussions. Always favor simple, flat discussions instead.

[advertisement] How are you showing off your awesome? Create a Stack Overflow Careers profile and show off all of your hard work from Stack Overflow, Github, and virtually every other coding site. Who knows, you might even get recruited for a great new position!

0
Your rating: None

One of the coolest videos I’ve seen in a while – this entire video is essentially a walk cycle of an anime girl running through all kinds of art-styles. It’s actually quite hypnotizing. Music by Livetune, directed by Fantasista Utamaro and Kubotabee.

(Thanks, Vivian Lee)

0
Your rating: None

About

“Abandon Thread” is a catchphrase that is used in online forums to indicate that a discussion thread has degraded in quality and should be abandoned. The phrase is often used as a reaction to thread jacking, flame wars or more general trolling behavior. In image macros and animated GIFs, the phrase is often paired with people or animals that appear as if they are attempting to flee. (See also Hey Guys What’s Going on in Here)

Origin

The phrase has been used in discussions threads on sites like the Democratic Underground[5] forums as far back as January 19th, 2004.

The earliest known animated GIF version shows a snail transforming its shell into a jetpack before flying out of frame with the caption “Abandon Thread” flashing in red. It was uploaded to ThreadBombing.com[1] on August 14th, 2009. The GIF was made from a clip of a CGI test video from Spon.com[3] titled “Spontaneous Snail” that was uploaded to YouTube on November 21st, 2006.

Spread

Usage of the phrase in discussion threads have been noted across a wide range of forums and websites like Lone Portal[8], Gaia Online[9] and IGN forums.[11] In addition, GIF derivatives of “Abandon Thread” images can be found on sites like Funny Junk[4], GIF Ninja[10], GIF Soup[6], Ebaumsworld[7], and Threadbombing’s “Thread Sucks” category.[2]

Notable Examples

Fuck This Thread I’m Outta Here

Similar to “abandon thread” responses, another set of image macros and animated GIFs featuring the catchphrase “fuck this thread I’m out of here” can be used in the same context.

Search Interest

Search queries for “abandon thread” had a small spike in July 2010 before picking back up in January of 2011.

External References

[1]Abandon Thread – Thread Bombing / 8-14-2009

[2]Thread Bombing – Thread Sucks

[3]Spon.com – Spon

[4]Funny Junk – abandon thread=

[5]Democratic Underground – Abandon thread! Abandon thread!

[6]GIF Soup – Gif Results for abandon thread

[7]Ebaumsworld – abandon thread

[8]Lone Portal – ABANDON THREAD!

[9]Gaia Online – Abandon thread. Troll attack.

[10]GIF Ninja – abandon thread

[11]IGN Forums – Someone cap Abandon Thread with this GIF

0
Your rating: None