Try being a bit less condescending. Just because someone thinks displays like this are hypocritical doesn't mean they are heartless. It could mean they are acutely aware that the only reason people care about this is incidental circumstance, and that equally sad events pass by without scrutiny because it didn't happen to someone who's milked it out for attention. Because that's what blogging about your daughter's cancer is.
If you're the kind of person who prefers fairness over indulging feels, then token efforts like pinning ribbons to things look like an ostentatious display of hypocrisy to friends and family, to show that you care about something everyone still collectively agrees not to do anything about (i.e. a kid dying).
Either he's feigning ignorance over why anybody would be the slightest bit empathetic toward the death of Eric Meyer's daughter or he's too much of a robot to actually understand.
You can make an argument that HN must be 100 percent on-topic, at all times, and that it doesn't belong here. But you can also argue that we are all humans and we can just accept it once in a while, even here.
To jump to the conclusion that it's all just for show, and nobody will actually take any sort of real action is pure cynicism. People have actually been affected by this, in ways that are certainly small in comparison to the the way the Meyer family has been. The most visible gestures might not accomplish much, but many people are actually donating money to charities that have a very real impact.
A year from now the people who turned their avatars purple today won't remember the hash tag or what it was for. This isn't about one kid dying, or many kids dying. It's about a bunch of people frantically acting to hide their sense of impotence.
I disagree. Eric Meyer has been writing about Rebecca's cancer since they found out on their vacation last summer, and many have been following. This isn't something that just happened today. It's been happening for nearly a year.
The thoughts it raises, particularly for parents, are not the kind that can just be dismissed once the hashtag stops trending.
It was actually counterproductive to leave out the context of this guy developing CSS and a link to whatever blog documented the cancer's story. The given explanation was simply adults don't have favorite colors, children do. You're perfectly welcome to have fewer people interested and make the whole thing seem like a pretentious non-sequitur to 99.99% of the world's population, but I guess you didn't think Rebecca deserved better and were simply being incompetent.
I never liked Gittip because of how it advertises its top earners and givers... it stops being about rewarding good work and starts to become a game of who can score the most validation points and use them for political gain.
Yelling on Twitter and demonizing men for existing is not "promoting empathy and equality". Begging for legal money for your civil lawsuit is not "sustainable crowd funding" (hint: what is she being sued for? it doesn't say.).
Sorry Gittip, but your site has turned into a joke dominated by professional victims.
God, it disgusts me to put my money through your system. (Due to either your incompetence or malice towards Gittip's top earners.) Can't wait when a decent alternative to you pops up.
But thanks for reminding me that I neglected to end my private Github account!
Yes, and what in the world does such nonsense have to do with rewarding open source developers? I feel like its a hobby business but everyone makes their own decisions.
Nice straw man. Most of those actually produce something useful, and there is a direct relationship between money given and product delivered.
I mean Jesus, earlier I saw Ashe Dryden complain that Gittip "doesn't care about her safety" and that she's now in a precarious position because she's "locked in" to it. Pretty sure she's the one who asked people to give her all that money. If she doesn't like it, she can go back to actually working for a living, like the rest of us. I took one look at Gittip when it opened up and said "Nope".
> If she doesn't like it, she can go back to actually working for a living, like the rest of us.
The rest of us turn up for 8 hours on a good day, turn in shitty code on our horrifically-factored, monolithic Rails app that some other poor shlub will have to maintain, break off at 2pm on a Friday for craft beer and convince ourselves we're changing the goddamn world with our latest social widget.
"Working for a living, like the rest of us"? Don't make me laugh.
The most half-assed Ruby dev, and oh my goodness there's some competition for that title, would easily be earning an integer multiple of what Ashe gets on gittip. You quite clearly know absolutely zilch about how much work Ashe does, and you so very obviously have no idea whatsoever how to value it, so how about you quieten down and go take a look at yourself, eh?
For Christ's sake, are you incapable of making a coherent argument? Your own list is inconsistent, lumping together ineffectual platitude salesmen and corrupt politicians with product developers.
If you'd manage to extract your head from your ass for 5 seconds, you'd realize these spoiled princesses have set back the cause of "marginalized tech professionals" more than a dozen titstares combined.
And as a guy not on the margins, who has been repeatedly educated and informed by these "spoiled princesses", I can't say I agree with him either. I find their work incredibly valuable, so I'd be interested to hear why joaren believes they're setting back their own cause.
Well, maybe "interested" is overstating it a bit. "Morbidly curious"?
> I find their work incredibly valuable, so I'd be interested to hear why joaren believes they're setting back their own cause.
I don't have any data or guesses, but it's conceivable that for every person like yourself who are educated toward their cause, a dozen others are turned away, in which case their actions would hurt the cause.
Right, "educated", on their false statistics? Like Shanley Kane's claim that men have a much easier time getting a 6 figure job out of college... except that unemployment among male college graduates is 50% higher than women's, and women already earn 60% of all college degrees. Let's ignore all that, tell guys to "shut the fuck up and listen", because the patriarchy is propagating systemic inequality.
Or how about Ashe Dryden's ignorance of the Norwegian Gender Paradox which shows that the more gender equal the opportunity, the less equal the outcome? See Richard Lippa of Fullerton's research, which shows this trend applies worldwide with an enormous sample size (i.e. gender is not a societal construct) and shows that the countries where there are more women in IT are the ones where it is a disproportionately lucrative career. I could also point to her hypocritical call to get people fired for starring the satirical Feminist Software Foundation github repo, a tweet so low even she eventually deleted it.
How about Noirin Plunkett's defamation lawsuit, for which she is soliciting money on Gittip? I'll just quote from the legal documents shall I:
> Plaintiff Michael G. Schwern was a leader for gender equity and a campaigner against sexual misconduct in the open-source software community. Complaint ¶2, Schwern Decl. ¶9. When plaintiff and his ex-wife, defendant Nóirín Plunkett, divorced, defendant — for reasons best known to her — chose to salt the earth by deliberately and maliciously spreading the lie that plaintiff had raped defendant. Complaint ¶¶8, 9, 13-23; Schwern Decl. ¶¶2-4, 8, 9; Exhibits 1-3. The criminal justice system rejected defendant’s allegations.
Yeah, these are the people who are "educating" the wider tech world with their informed opinions. Also, remember, false rape accusations never happen, no matter what Charles McDowell (1985) and Eugene Kanin (1994) found.
> Like Shanley Kane's claim that men have a much easier time getting a 6 figure job out of college... except that unemployment among male college graduates is 50% higher than women's
"A study of more than 400,000 graduates who left university last summer showed that 9% of males were unemployed six months after quitting compared with just 6% of women.
However, when it came to salaries, those men who had found their way into work were earning higher salaries than women with 32% earning more than £25,000 a year - compared with just 18% of women." [1]
Men are more likely than women to be unemployed or employed full time, while women are more likely than men to work part time at one or more jobs. [2]
Your statement is accurate, but so is hers.
> I'll just quote from the legal documents shall I
You quoted Schwern's accusation, which you seem to think bears more weight than Plunkett's accusation, despite neither being legally substantiated.
I have no time for someone who claims to be quoting "the legal documents" when he is in fact parroting one side's case in a domestic violence dispute to which he is not a party. Thanks for clarifying what you are, though; that's useful, albeit hardly surprising.
Who the hell cares about definitions? Oh right, mathematicians, and they manage to make a beautiful subject terribly boring by insisting it's all about manipulating symbols, instead of the underlying structures they represent.
I mean, programming is about typing and manipulating text into a box, right?
Because today, despite 60% of college grads being female, only 16% of comp sci students are women. Choices. Agency. Isn't that what equality is supposed to be about?
Really? I've had several links posted to metafilter, in every instance the comment thread was full of petty, small minded nagging. Seems like just another 'intellectual' echo chamber to me.
Exactly. What's going on is that the feminists of MVC are looking at the extremes: extreme abuse, or extreme success. What they don't care about is that this is an industry where 40 hour work weeks are a luxury, and the average neckbeard sysadmin is despised by HR even as he fixes their boxes for the n'th time.
As a general rule of thumb: if women have it bad, men have it worse. But since the bottom half of men are invisible, everyone focuses on the 'poor' victimized women instead.
Roy Baumeister's "Is There Anything Good About Men?" explains this well, but they'd never read it because it's "MRA".
> As a general rule of thumb: if women have it bad, men have it worse.
Can you honestly write that and actually believe it? Even better, can you give some examples to justify it? That's a pretty big claim, and one that, at face value, seems pretty unlikely.
* Domestic violence (men can't be the victim in eyes of public and law).
* Divorces (70% initiated by women, child support calculated basing on one month of his highest income ever, women get the children).
* Body integrity (circumcision anyone?)
* Sexist sentencing (men get on average twice as high number of years in jail for the same crimes)
* Education (man are lagging behind women in both primary, secondary and college degrees)
* Work-place related injuries and deaths (mostly men, all of the time).
Women in US? Yeah, often meet with prejudice when it comes to evaluation of their abilities as employees and professionals. Most other often repeated problems are BS and are not supported by statistics.
Specifically, this part from the bottom of the article:
Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys." The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don't is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.
Ok, this article needs some dismantling. Huge amount of straight propaganda.
1. Or it was other way around. Women in workforce => Feminism.
3. And installed laws such as VOWA, installed Diluth Model etc etc.
5,6. More half-truths and lies. The only contraceptive that gives men power to control their reproduction is condom, which was invented long before Feminism. Pill and other forms of contraception are empowering ONLY women. "Men get abortions too" is beyond manipulation. Idea that by helping small group of LGBTQ folk Feminism is saving ALL the males is repeated few more times in this article. Ridiculous.
7. Beautiful manipulation. Indeed, this change of definition allowed persecution in cases where male is a victim. Still, it is not possible to persecute "envelopment" as rape.
10-17. Feminism also cured AIDS, send humans to the Moon and granted eternal salvation in afterlife.
18. Clearly, before Feminism women never left kitchen. /s
20. Imagine that? A Movie! Damn, Feminism is literally anti Hitler!
21. Hey, I fought against Putin's second, third and fourth term. And I failed miserably, just as Feminism in this particular case.
21. "Feminism teaches us that nothing is objective, not even science." Enough said.
Oh good, you replied to factual statistics with a bunch of feel good nonsense from Jezebel, which we all know is a respected journal in the social sciences.
Absolutely. Go look at the Middle East, visit Tehran. See how many 80 year old male taxi drivers there are. The men are obliged to support to women into old age, who are legally entitled to privileges. See how many 80 year old women do the same.
Of course this gets rewritten into a "woman are victims" narrative where they aren't allowed to leave the house, even though few Iranian women care to change this situation.
Women have in group bias, the Women are Wonderful effect exists, and the bottom half of the men are invisible.
If you really want to understand this as a man, start to engage in feminist discussions with a female nickname. All of a sudden, you can be hyperbolic, hypersensitive and hysterical, and people will somehow find a way to excuse such behaviour. Post the exact same comment as a man, and you will not only be dismissed, but often seen as a credible threat.
And it's exactly this sort of visceral reaction that will keep the "women are victims" meme going long after we're all dead. It's evolutionarily beneficial, after all, we are descended from twice as many women as men. You don't think that happened purely by coincidence or as a "societal construct" did you?
It's not a visceral reaction. Those tend to be far less polite.
It's a reaction to the idea that men having their own struggles must, invariably, be parsed as a zero-sum game against women, and the toxic idea that for men to benefit, somehow women must lose.
I find myself agreeing with most of what you wrote, and yet, it doesn't matter. You keep sabotaging yourselves.
Does no-one do QA? Do you not have a Steve Jobs-esque character who has taste and an eye for detail and who can look at this stuff the way your users will? Because such a person would've looked at this and Noped the fuck out of there, cancelled whatever PR you had planned, and put everyone around a table saying "we're not there and can we fix it?".
Your first hyped launch thing was a sign-up form with blurry fonts leading no where. Now you've implemented a giant janky scrollbar with easing equations calibrated for "instant turn off". The parallels to Flash really are quite similar.
You should not imitate native behaviour unless you have someone going over it with a fine toothed comb, and you shouldn't be making grand claims about the future when you cock up the present.
If you believe your own claims, then why does your page work terribly on my brand new laptop, never mind the 4 year old one it just replaced?
1) Launch an imperfect product that works well for some use cases; or
2) Perfect everything and be ridiculed as vaporware
I wish we were Apple and had $159 billion in cash reserves. We're not though and have to operate within different constraints that don't afford us the same luxuries. You can't really compare Apples to Famo.uses
No offence by I cannot read anything on your website because the native scroll doesn't work, nor does my keyboard ( I had to scroll using my mouse-wheel and it was not smooth). That is neither 1) nor 2), it's 101.
How can I trust your "Ready to start building a beautiful UI?", when the basic tenant of a UI in regards to a webpage is missing.
If you did this to any popular website it would be a mass exodus in no time flat.
If you spent two years hyping vaporware and then do a major Apple-esque launch with all the fanfair while claiming to the next evolution of technology...
... you should at least attempt to make the scrollbar on your own website work correctly.
Seriously. You don't have to be Steve Jobs to realize that your scrollbar needs fixing. It's not just unpolished, it fundamentally doesn't work.
It took us some time, but it shipped, so by definition, it cannot be vaporware.
Yes, the scrollbar needs fixing. We're working on it. Remember that the framework is also open source, so we're open to receiving pull requests that help get these issues resolved sooner.
Wikipedia was once compared to Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of number of errors it contained. It had more errors, but shortly thereafter those errors were fixed. Many of the shortcomings of our scroller will be fixed very soon. Some fixes may take a bit longer, but anyone bitten by a particular bugs has the ability to fix the problem.
Linux also went through similar pains with obviously broken parts early on before it reached maturity.
I don't know about you, but I much prefer a world where open source projects exist, even if a little broken in the beginning. Whenever someone actively hates on an open-source project they are essentially littering in and poisoning the commons instead of helping cultivate and nurture that public space.
I think this is really the point I'm driving at that people need to consider. Building something of this magnitude and ambition takes time. It's open source and anyone, including everyone wielding criticism in this thread has the power to download the source code, try it out, find out where it shines and help polish it where it does not yet shine.
Give it a fair shot; discover its merits; help make it better for everyone.
>I absolutely loathe this attitude that has taken over entrepreneurship. This is not OK. I don't give a shit what the Lean Theory zealots say.
They've worked insane hours for over a year to create a tool. It's an imperfect tool, but one capable of doing amazing things. And they've given it away for free. How are you not OK with this?
If you work insane hours for over a year, your company is broken. That is a problem of time allocation and unrealistic expectations, and has no bearing on the quality or usefulness of the work being done.
As for "capable of doing amazing things", this is stuff that Flash was able to do better 10 years ago. If people hadn't forgotten where we came from, and browser makers hadn't ridden the CSS train to performance hell, Famous wouldn't even be necessary.
So far, all I've seen is a) huge, hyped up promises and b) janky demos that feel like some interaction design student's wild experiments. You don't need to be Apple to do this right, you just have to be able to be honest about the output of your own work.
I expect negative comments on occasion from everyone, but you've been registered on HN for 16 days and every single comment you've made since you've joined has been vitrolic haterade that adds nothing constructive to the threads you participate or the community. Do you ever have anything positive to say about anything? If you're so embittered, why participate here at all?
I agree but add that it's not lean.
Being lean means having reduced functionality but the bits that you do launch should work well. In this case, the launched bits don't work well.
Don't sweat it, I recall Meteor went through the same thing way back when - cool core technology, no security or other practical considerations - and look at them now, $11.2M Series A from A16Z. You can never have too many JS frameworks doing cool new stuff pushing the limits on what's possible on the web, launch warts notwithstanding.
Thank you for your comment. It refreshing (not because it involves my company (although that helps), but because it sets the right tone for the community). Encouragement with constructive criticism combined results in greater good.
TBH I'm not sweating it at all. I understand the criticism. Some of it is fair commentary from thoughtful people, some is typical cynicism that blinds the otherwise intelligent. At the end of the day, the only difference between a bug report and a rant is the tone of voice used to communicate.
I'm mainly trying to provide counterpoint so that others who have yet to make up their own mind have the opportunity to do so. Many discussions can often get trapped moving in the direction in which they start. Get of on the right foot and things evolve excessively positive without constructive criticism. Get off on the wrong foot and things spiral out of control into doom and gloom. Regardless of which way it goes, doing a reality check lets the conversation focus on criticisms that actually have merit instead of the devolving into the mutual admiration society or a grand hate parade.
Our website is not the product. I promise you that if you take the time to explore actual product we're working on, you'll see that it's pretty polished, but lacks some features.
The problem is that it seems to be the only thing bigger than a one-click demo built with the product that is available, so it is -- whether you intend it to be or not -- the most powerful statement you have about what the utility of your product.
(It doesn't help that the broking scrolling makes it very hard to get to some of the rest of the content.)
If you think it represents the product poorly, I think you desperately need (1) to not rely on your product for your whole public-facing website (dogfooding is good, but part of that is having good judgement about fitness for purpose), and (2) build something that has a clear role that is more than a trivial demo that demonstrates the real utility of the product (something that's part of your public website, and a key and useful part and not just a demo, may be good, but it needs to be something that the product is ready to do acceptably.)
Or, if the problems really are fairly minor, then fix the problems that makes using it for your whole website and turn that into a plus.
> I promise you that if you take the time to explore actual product we're working on, you'll see that it's pretty polished, but lacks some features
Asking people to do more work to discover the value of your product is generally not a compelling way to get people on board with it. If the external visitors first impression isn't positive, its not their job to work harder to get to a positive impression.
Your website is seen to reflect the quality & state of your product - by extension it _is_ your product.
I realize all the negative feedback must be demoralizing, but humans are silly beasts who have knee-jerk reactions to most things, and don't bother delving any further. Unfortunately, it's often best to cater to that.
The fact that you seriously say "our website is not the product" shows how utterly misguided you are in your marketing. I am not trying to be mean, this is simple and logical advice.
You make a platform for making websites. Your website is a huge turn-off that reminds everyone of every shitty over designed web brochure / 'experience' they've ever seen. And you think this is just a problem because people are picky.
For such an ambitious project, bugs at this stage are totally reasonable. The problem is that they're front and center following months of hype and promotion.
And there's nothing wrong with building momentum either, Famo.us has really done a solid job generating the buzz. But if you are going to take that route, then yes, the details at launch-time are dang important.
I'm very intrigued by the premise and think the progress is tremendous. But I can't really blame folks for their initial reactions and that's kind of a shame.
What use cases is this good for? It seems to be fundamentally broken on both desktop and mobile for even basic functionality. There's something that solves only some very narrow provide problem better than existing solutions; that offers clear, if niche, value. But I don't see how this rises to that level.
I'm not sure 'make scrolling (a feature the browser does natively) work on desktop' = "perfect everything"... I can perfect scrolling by creating a blank html page.
Mozilla brought this on itself when they took the epic lead they had with Firebug and utterly squandered it by thinking real dev tools were not something a browser should include out of the box, in favour of an utterly useless "3D" DOM view that is a made up diagram conveying no useful information about compositing or layering.
Mozilla brought this on itself when they treated memory leaks and extension crashes as performance issues to be papered over rather than fundamental flaws in an architecture unprepared for how people wanted to use it.
Mozilla brought this on itself when they treated OS X like the idiot stepchild instead of delivering the native experience users clearly loved in Chrome and Safari, thus alienating the Mac-dominated cutting edge of web tech.
Mozilla brought this on itself when they provided incomplete implementations of CSS transforms, Web Audio and WebGL (an idea they originated!), and a bunch of other specs people actually wanted. Parts of WebGL are broken in the current stable release of Firefox, and yet Mozilla wants to go around claiming the high ground with Unreal and asm.js?
If they'd spend less money on having their 'evangelists' show off trivial toys around the world, and more on actually solving real daily problems (like the Chrome developer tools team did), we wouldn't be in this mess, and they wouldn't think moves of desperation like asm.js are a good idea.
Are those problems so bad, that even you stooped as low as using a proprietary browser? Was that a sufficient price for your freedom?
Mozilla made mistakes, but it doesn't excuse the blindness of its users. Reminds me of GNU/Linux vs OSX. Apple made a shiny new OS that "just works" on their own hardware, and a good chunk of the tech community went drooling over this, instead of getting its act together and fixing the Linux desktop. Again, I guess this is the price of freedom.
Are you for real? Mozilla gets $300 million per year from Google to maintain the pretense of freedom. Meanwhile I have to pay my own bills and deliver projects that my clients will pay for. To bring money into this argument and somehow blame "the users" for this string of epic mess ups is fucking rich.
Was I supposed to not diagnose jank using Chrome's frame analysis tools? Not profile memory allocations in its timeline? Develop my WebGL against an incomplete, broken and slow implementation to spare Mozilla's feelings? Firefox is a buggy and slow hunk of code whose maintainers are high on their own supply, and are only now starting to eat the humble pie now it's far too late. Simple as that.
Oh and the reasons why people switched to OS X are more related to connecting to wifi in under 1 second and implementing sleep/hibernate in a way that makes sense. Elegant solutions to real problems, not hack piled upon hack. Not that the hardcore free software nerds will ever get any of that, because it's too nice and shiny for them to even consider.
First thought: wow, you have a hostile attitude, contrary to the site guidelines.
Second thought: if you're happy using Apple products because the WiFi works better and you don't care about freedom, then where's your stake in this thread? AFAICT, you don't care (much) about DRM, so ep103's exhortation for people to be consistent is not criticizing you. You, AFAICT, are ethically consistent; you suckle the teat of convenience, and you like how it tastes. Power to you! So what's your problem?
Unless you DO care about DRM.
Again, ep103's point is: if Alice complains about Mozilla's philosphical weakness, but Alice is already using a browser (and/or OS!) that is twice as bad as Mozilla, then Alice is a hypocrite and should look in the mirror, because she's part of the problem.
Go open a theatre, you're great at projecting. The problem is exactly that I'm supposed to love Linux and Mozilla, because these are the approved choices of the Free Software World. As a result, both suck, and none of the people involved want to hear it, because how could you not love freedom and puppies and doing good?
I've seen up close and personal how Mozilla spends its oodles of cash, I've spoken to folks from all the browser vendors at conferences. The only thing different about Mozilla is the sanctimonious attitude and the utter shock when you dare suggest their actions do not necessarily match words. Everyone else already knows how the game is being played.
It's a pretty crappy experience. I'm reading an article, suddenly the text decides to move left for 'no good reason' to create a narrow but empty sidebar.
WTF? I don't like reading things on the left side of my monitor, so I make the window wider to try and put the text back in the middle. Except now the demo area gets even wider (why? you don't use it for anything but tiny things?).
As I scroll, the various iframe loads create annoying jank, and to top it off, there's a bug at the end of the post where it moves horizontally for no good reason.
If you're going to do stuff like this, you need to polish it waaay better. This reminds me of the UI animations in the new Firefox. A good idea ruined by implementation, would've been better to leave them out.
If you're the kind of person who prefers fairness over indulging feels, then token efforts like pinning ribbons to things look like an ostentatious display of hypocrisy to friends and family, to show that you care about something everyone still collectively agrees not to do anything about (i.e. a kid dying).