this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2025
130 points (95.1% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

41801 readers
924 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I have 13 sites whitelisted to allow JS. The internet is fairly usable for me without JS.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 hours ago

Same. This is the way.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 11 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

People in this thread who aren't web devs: "web devs are just lazy"

Web devs: Alright buddy boy, you try making a web site these days with the required complexity with only HTML and CSS. 😆 All you'd get is static content and maybe some forms. Any kind of interactivity goes out the door.

Non web devs: "nah bruh this site is considered broken for the mere fact that it uses JavaScript at all"

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 hours ago

“nah bruh this site is considered broken for the mere fact that it uses JavaScript at all”

A little paraphrased, but that's the gist.

Isn't there an article just today that talks about CSS doing most of the heavy-lifting java is usually crutched to do?

I did webdev before the framework blight. It was manual php, it was ASP, it was soul-crushing. That's the basis for my claim that javascript lamers are just lazy, and supply-chain splots waiting to manifest.

[–] Frostbeard@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

Stop, can only get so erect. Give me that please than the bullshit I have to wade trough today to find information. When is the store open. E-mailadress/phone. Like fuck if I want to engage

[–] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I would argue that a lot it scripting can and should be done server side.

[–] Cerothen@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

That would make the website feel ultra slow since a full page load would be needed every time. Something as simple as a slide out menu needs JavaScript and couldn't really be done server side.

When if you said just send the parts of the page that changed, that dynamic content loading would still be JavaScript. Maybe an iframe could get you somewhere but that's a hacky work around and you couldn't interact between different frames

[–] expr@programming.dev 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

https://htmx.org/ solves the problem of full page loads. Yes, it's a JavaScript library, but it's a tiny JS library (14k over the wire) that is easily cached. And in most cases, it's the only JavaScript you need. The vast majority of content can be rendered server side.

[–] Cerothen@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 hour ago

While fair, now you have to have JavaScript enabled in the page which I think was the point. It was never able having only a little bit. It was that you had to have it enabled

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 37 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

Skill issue - on the devs side.

A lot of pages even fail if you only disable 3rd-party scripts (my default setting on mobile).

I consider them broken, since the platform is to render a Document Object Model; scripting is secondary functionality and having no fallbacks is bad practice.
Imagine if that were a pdf/epub.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago

no fallbacks is bad practice.

This is how you know they're extra lazy -- no "please enable javascript because we suck and have no noscript version".

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 20 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

wild thing is that with modern css and local fonts (nerdfonts, etc), you can make a simple page with a modern grid and nested css without requiring a single third party library or js.

devs are just lazy.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 points 9 hours ago

Devs are lazy but also product people and design request stuff that even modern CSS cannot do

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 9 points 11 hours ago

devs are just lazy.

*cost-efficient. At this point it's a race to the bottom.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I use uBlock medium mode, and if I can't get a website to work without having to enable JavaScript, then I just leave the website.

[–] hellfire103@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 hours ago

I generally do the same. In fact, on desktop, uBO is set to hard mode. Unfortunately, I do need to access these sites from time to time.

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 21 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

because modern webdevs cant do anything without react

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago

because ~~modern~~ young/unskilled webdevs cant do anything without react

[–] fxdave@lemmy.ml 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I'm a webdev. I agree. I like react.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

I disagree,I did fullstack for years without react, I used the much superior Vue.js

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 14 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes.

Many people won't even know what we're talking about; to them it's like saying "the sheer amount of websites that are unusable without HTML". But I use uBlock Origin in expert mode and block js by default; this allows me to click on slightly* fishy links without endangering my setup or immediately handing my data over to some 3rd party.

So I'm happy to see news websites that do not require js at all for a legible experience, and enraged that others even hide the fucking plain text of the article behind a script. Even looking at the source code does not reveal it. And I'm not talking about paywalls.


* real fishy links go into the Tor browser, if I really want to see what's behind them.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 8 hours ago

Said it on a top-level comment as well, but I use "medium mode" on uBlock (weirdly not advertised, but easy enough to enable: https://github.com/gorhill/ublock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium-mode). I've found it to be a good middle ground between expert mode which is basically noscript, and rawdogging it.

If I encounter a site that I can't visit unless I enable JS, then I leave.

[–] witty_username@feddit.nl 8 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

If I'd want to write a site with js-equivalent functionality and ux without using js, what would my options be?

[–] dondelelcaro@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

htmx or equivalent technologies. The idea is to render as much as possible server side, and then use JS for the things that can't be rendered there or require interactivity. And at the very least, serve the JS from your server, don't leak requests to random CDNs.

[–] hellfire103@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

HTML and CSS can do quite a lot, and you can use PHP or cgi-bin for some scripting.

Of course, it's not a perfect alternative. JavaScript is sometimes the only option; but a website like the one I was trying to use could easily have just been a static site.

[–] ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

WASM and cry because you can't directly modify the DOM without JS.

[–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

You can't modify the DOM.

But ~~some~~ most dynamicity can stay - sites can be built freely server-side, and even some "dynamic" functionality like menus can be made using css pseudoclasses.

Sure, you won't have a Google Docs or Gmail webapp, but 90% of stuff doesn't actually need one.

A basic website doesn't require js.

A webshop, for example, does for the part around adding to cart and checkout - but it doesn't for merely browsing.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

For a web store you probably only need Javascript for payment processing. Insofar as I've seen pretty much all of the widgets provided by the card processors outright require Javascript (and most of them are also exceedingly janky, regardless of what they look like on the outside to the user).

You definitely don't need Javascript just for a shopping cart, though. That can all be done server side.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world -1 points 9 hours ago

I mean you could build a site in next.js, ironically. Which is very counter intuitive because it literally is js you are writing, but you can write it to not do dynamic things so it effectively would be a static server rendered site that, if js is enabled, gets for free things like a loader bar and quick navigation transitions. If js is disabled it functions just like a standard static site.

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

I just use NOSCRIPT to do this and its annoying to visit websites that need Javascript, but its handy with noscript cause I just turn on the Javascript the website needs for functionality (this should also speed up load times)
Sometimes if am using a browser without extension support (like Gnome WEB) I just disable Javascript on Websites or frontends that dont need it like Invidious (if am facing issues)

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 hours ago

i just add any site that breaks without js to my list of sites to eradicate adguard filter and send it to /dev/null