But regardless! As I mention in another place on this thread: The point of this project is the blunt comparison to The Onion -- the copying of the name, look, and feel of a well known and well recognized satirical publication is actually a vital part of the statement about our world and the media.
Sorry I missed the boat on letting you have fun with the CSS (I'd be glad to point it back if you would enjoy it!) But yes, this was built in a few hours and most of that time was spent playing with caching and deployment. Not so much "lazy" as "rushed." (considering this is for the lulz, I'm OK with it being called rushed.)
So yes, to be clear, this was a "lets have quick fun and make a satirical mashup" not a "lets spend a week designing a web site that looks like The Onion." Not sure where scum comes into play given that fact, but I'm sorry if the project pissed anyone off over there. In my experience different people react to détournement in different ways when they are the ones being shifted around.
As for the circles, you're right about not us being in touch with the dev teams over there.
Regarding fonts, noted; I'll wait and see if there is a formal response from The Onion on these fronts but you clearly know the first-hand vibe -- if that's upsetting people I can remove them.
As for the other media we're aware of that and will be making a move soon, THERE ARE ONLY SO MANY FINGERS ON A HAND!
Also, you state that you only spent a few hours, and that "most of that time was spent playing with caching and deployment". If you were spending time making sure that the site was cached and performant, it seems less like the hotlinking was an oversight, and more like it was something you just didn't care about.
If you would have taken another few hours, made sure that your ducks were in a row, and THEN began promoting it, you'd be in much better shape right now, and I wouldn't be commenting here.
As for the circles, if you don't know anyone on the dev team, why are you repeatedly claiming to have a tacit OK from us?
As to the fonts, I want to be clear: your current use of the fonts is infringement. We have paid to license those fonts for use on our site. You have not done this, and so you're now infringing--not against us, but against the owners of those fonts. We're not going to come after you, I'd bet that someone will (eventually).
To summarize my position again: I'm not at all a fan of how you went about doing this, but it's honestly not a huge deal—just a bit rude.
It's almost as if you are personally paying out for the extra bandwidth this little project has caused for The Onion. This is not a commercial project, and most of the HN community is just messing around with tech to see how it works. Sometimes, people have the balls to show others, and I appreciate it. What I don't really care for is people who sign up and bitch about the derivative products of others on the basis of Intellectual Property.
My advice: Just ignore HN
P.S. I will help to compensate you for any personal financial hit you take.
Honestly, I think this idea is pretty cool, but just ripping off our CSS and HTML seems a little scummy. Not only that, but the fact that you were initially hotlinking our static media makes it seems like this is a bit of a lazy effort (let it be noted: you're still hotlinking a lot of media—now it's just from other sites). I'm actually a little sad that you stopped hotlinking our css, because we were already working on another stylesheet to mess with you.
Beyond that, you're using our fonts. These are not free web fonts. They are fonts that we paid a good deal of money to be able to use legally on our site, and they are definitely not authorized for use on yours.
Bottom line: cool idea, not OK execution.
