原來 Disqus 已經被網路廣告公司買走了...

在「Disqus, the dark commenting system」這邊才看到 Disqus 被網路廣告公司買的消息:

Disqus was acquired by an advertising company called Zeta Global in 2017. Obviously, advertising companies do everything to increase their revenue (Ex: the Big G).

引用的報導則是在「Zeta Global acquires commenting service Disqus」這邊可以看到,大約在三年前發生的事情...

基本上已經變成廣告追蹤平台了:

I analyzed the network requests log. Disqus makes HTTP requests to 11 different third-party domains through the browser. All of these websites are trackers/pixels (Even some were detected as malware by my security guard).

而且就算是付費會員也一樣,還是會追蹤:

When you provide a free product, money should come from somewhere. Disqus uses advertising for that. Now, I subscribed to a paid plan trial of Disqus to see if things change or not. No! Even in the paid plans, the same pixels are loaded on the client-side. Looks like there's no way to opt-out from tracking.

後面的推薦可以看看就好,自己架應該還是比較好的選擇... 用「open source comment system」搜有些東西可以參考。

Million Dollar Homepage 上的網站存活率

作者在分析 2005 年炒熱話題的 Million Dollar Homepage,上面所列的網站的存活比率:「A Million Squandered: The “Million Dollar Homepage” as a Decaying Digital Artifact」。

這是作者在 2017 年抓的截圖:

而這是分析圖:

作者跑程式分析,其中大約一半的 pixel 已經失效:

The 547 unreachable links are attached to graphical elements that collectively take up 342,000 pixels (face value: $342,000). Redirects account for a further 145,000 pixels (face value: $145,000).

不過如果以網站數量來看,則大約還有 63% 活著:

Of the 2,816 links that embedded on the page (accounting for a total of 999,400 pixels), 547 are entirely unreachable at this time. A further 489 redirect to a different domain or to a domain resale portal, leaving 1,780 reachable links.

突然有種「銀河的歷史又翻過了一頁」的感覺 XDDD

90 年代的網站...

前天看到的「Only 90s Web Developers Remember This」文章裡面在懷舊 (?):

  • 1x1.gif
  •           
  • Dotted underlines, border effects
  • DHTML
  • Pixel fonts
  • Buttons

然後在 Facebook 上看到 zonble 貼的:「DHTMLConf」,太讚了 XDDD

讓人懷念的東西... XDDD

CSS 裡,px 的定義並沒有保證線性...?

在 Hacker News 上看到的舊文章,在「IN CSS, “PX” IS NOT AN ANGULAR MEASUREMENT AND IT IS NOT NON-LINEAR」這篇文章裡面,標題就直接提到「pixel 並非生而平等」...

文章裡的 pixel 的定義是:

a pixel is defined as the smallest object that can be displayed on a device

但我找不到這句話的出處...

到是 CSS 2.1 的 PDF 裡可以看到 px 的定義是:

px: pixel units — 1px is equal to 0.75pt.

以及 pt 的定義:

pt: points — the points used by CSS are equal to 1/72nd of 1in.

而連 in 都有定義:

in: inches — 1in is equal to 2.54cm.

然後 cm 這個縮寫定義到公制:

cm: centimeters

看起來不像是有問題啊?另外是還有對 reference pixel 的定義,看起來也很明確啊:

The reference pixel is the visual angle of one pixel on a device with a pixel density of 96dpi and a distance from the reader of an arm’s length. For a nominal arm’s length of 28 inches, the visual angle is therefore about 0.0213 degrees. For reading at arm’s length, 1px thus corresponds to about 0.26 mm (1/96 inch).

暫時不考慮這個問題... 有機會再回頭來看好了 @_@