Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: korin43 31 October 2017 10:03:35PM 0 points [-]


Also if anyone else gets a "schema validation error" when changing this setting, remove the "Website" from your profile: https://github.com/Discordius/Lesswrong2/issues/225

Comment author: Habryka 31 October 2017 11:56:41PM 0 points [-]

Yeah, that's a bug. I am planning to remove the whole website field soon anyways.

In response to Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: skeptical_lurker 28 October 2017 11:50:39AM *  2 points [-]

I haven't posted on LW for a while now, but after posting to LW2.0 I got banned (till 2021) very quickly. My posts were also deleted. I was not told why I was banned, although I assume it was because I entered a fake email (I was annoyed that the new site required an email and not just a username). I asked why I got banned, and received no response.

Well, I'm sorry for using a fake email. I wasn't trying to spam, or sockpuppet or anything, but I think a 3 year ban without any sort of warning or explanation seems a little excessive. I'm happy to provide an email that works if required. I also considered setting up a new account with a real email, but I don't want it to seem like I'm sockpuppetting.

Comment author: Habryka 28 October 2017 01:41:18PM 3 points [-]

Alas, I haven't been super much on top of support lately, so sorry for not responding.

Sorry for this happening. I mistook you for Eugine_Nier, who was spamposting with a bunch of highly political stuff right at the minute you made your first few comments. It looks like you accidentally posted a comment twice, and the one that you posted twice was one that commented on the relationship between the MTG wheel and Nazism (actually making an OK point, but my pattern match system immediately matched it to Eugine's other spam comments). That, together with the fact that your email address was a fake email led me to the false belief that you were one of Eugine's sockpuppets.

I unbanned you, and will try to be more on top of support in the future.

Comment author: gjm 19 October 2017 10:52:33AM 0 points [-]

That seems like a thing that depends on how it's used more than how it works. If The People Of Less Wrong want a more conversational feel on LW2 then I expect it will happen.

(Though I think you're right that the LW2 powers-that-be want it somewhat further along the chat-to-publishing axis.)

Comment author: Habryka 19 October 2017 09:58:30PM 1 point [-]

We actually have plans for a more chat-like section of the site, though we haven't yet fully converged on an implementation. Here is the relevant section from the LessWrong 2 strategy doc:

Shortform (implementation unclear)

Many authors (including Eliezer) have requested a section of the site for more short-form thoughts, more similar to the length of an average FB post. It seems reasonable to have a section of the site for that, though I am not yet fully sure how it should be implemented.

Comment author: Elo 18 October 2017 08:35:54PM 3 points [-]

NOTHING WILL BE SHUT DOWN UNTIL MEETUP FUNCTIONALITY IS ON THE NEW SITE. Many many active meetups run through 1.0. It's staying until functionality is over there.

Comment author: Habryka 19 October 2017 09:55:52PM 0 points [-]

Yep, though I do expect this to happen at least in its basic functionality by the end of the year, though we might not be able to get full feature parity before we move over towards the new site. I would be interested in getting a list of the most important features you see for our meetup functionality.

Comment author: korin43 21 September 2017 01:37:43PM 3 points [-]

Agghhh I can't leave this tab open because it does this:


Comment author: Habryka 19 October 2017 04:22:00AM 2 points [-]

You can now also deactivate Intercom on your profile. I really wish Intercom wouldn't do the horrible thing with the tab-title.

In response to comment by Habryka on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: SaidAchmiz 07 October 2017 06:20:40PM 0 points [-]

In our case, the vast majority of the !important statements are there to override one specific lowest level material-UI inline style

Why not remove/disable that one specific style?

Comment author: Habryka 08 October 2017 12:39:43AM 1 point [-]

Because that would add a whole different level of complexity to our code, where now instead of just managing CSS styles, we would need to both manage css styles in one section of our page, and JS-inline styles in another section of the page. Since the interface by which you change the material-UI inline-styles is by passing style-objects to the relevant React components.

We tried this for a bit, but this made things much harder to maintain and keep clean than having important-statements in some parts of the CSS.

In the long-run I want to move towards a styled-components approach, where all styles live in the component files, which we can do after the current @next branch of material UI reaches maturity and feature parity with the current one.

In response to comment by Habryka on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: SaidAchmiz 07 October 2017 02:01:47AM 2 points [-]

That's good to hear, and I wish you success in your efforts to that end! Here is a very simple heuristic, which is very helpful in evaluating how clean your CSS is:

How many times does !important appear in your codebase?

The ideal number is very, very small. (There is a reasonable argument for using it on buttons, and similar utility classes with complex and very specific and universally immutable styling; doing a once-over of a typical LW 2.0 page, I see no cases that fit this profile.) "Zero" is a typical number of instances of !important in a well-maintained CSS codebase.

Currently, that number, for the CSS that goes into an ordinary LW 2.0 post, is 623.

(This is not the be-all and end-all of CSS code quality metrics! But it is, as I said, a very good heuristic.)

Comment author: Habryka 07 October 2017 12:35:20PM *  0 points [-]

Ah, i agree that that is usually a good heuristic. In our case it's a bit different though.

We are currently using the Material-UI frontend framework, which is great on a really large set of dimensions, but does all of it's styling in the form of inline CSS (the latest version is moving away from that, but that is currently only in prerelease).

In our case, the vast majority of the !important statements are there to override one specific lowest level material-UI inline style, and are not there to override any other styles in our own CSS files. This makes the impact of those statements significantly less bad than they would usually be. Still not happy about having to use the important tags that way, and it does definitely have some cost, but overall the cost is much lower than one would naively expect.

In response to comment by lahwran on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: SaidAchmiz 03 October 2017 02:03:08AM *  1 point [-]

I don’t disagree in general—certainly UI changes are easier than infrastructure changes—though there is a caveat, illustrated by the old story about the repairman who took a large repair fee to fix a complicated piece of machinery, and then gave the thing a good thwack, whereupon it worked again; to the client’s protestations that such an easy “fix” was hardly worth the hefty bill—after all, all the guy did was hit the machine once!—the technician replied “yeah, but you gotta know where to hit it…”.

So with UX: many of the changes are easy to make, it’s knowing which ones to make and how, that’s the trick of it.

As for what to prioritize—this is something to consider: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/aesthetic-usability-effect/ (though not to try and apply unreflectively!)

Finally, implementation details (including infrastructural ones) can make it harder or easier to make changes to the UI and layout and so on. (For example, the CSS component of the LW 2.0 codebase is a <comment redacted to maintain prosociality>, which makes it actually not very easy to make many of the sorts of changes which should be easy to make.)

Comment author: Habryka 06 October 2017 09:21:19AM 0 points [-]

We actually just cleaned up our CSS a bit, but agree that we probably want to make that part cleaner in the long run. Though I haven't found making changes particularly difficult.

In response to comment by turchin on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: gjm 03 October 2017 10:02:07PM 0 points [-]

I suspect the answer, if you want to do it, is to contact an admin. I think the LW2 admins are generally helpful, and it's much easier for them to change things than it is for the old-LW admins.

In response to comment by gjm on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: Habryka 06 October 2017 09:18:40AM 0 points [-]

That is correct! I've been a bit less responsive in the last week, but usually get back to people within half an hour to an hour, and have helped dozens of people migrate their accounts, fix bugs, change email addresses, etc.

Comment author: Habryka 02 October 2017 07:15:38PM *  1 point [-]

Yeah, this was a bug I accidentally seem to have introduced a bit ago. I apologize. The correct ratio I wanted to use was the one that Tufte CSS uses, which is 21px size to 30px height, which is a much more reasonable ratio. (This will be fixed in the next few days)

In response to comment by Habryka on Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: Habryka 06 October 2017 09:16:02AM 2 points [-]

This is fixed now.

View more: Next