Meai

I have to agree with this but if Google's goal is to make the web faster then the AMP mission can still be done almost exactly as they are doing it today. Just publish a profiling tool (expanding Lighthouse maybe) that reports the numbers back to Google and then you either get to use their cache and edge servers and get ranked higher or not based on whatever metric that Google wants us to care about. Maybe I'm missing something but that really seems like a much more obvious approach to solving the problem without going through this weird extra webcomponents library, different URL schemes and all that.

Yes, Cone: http://cone.jondgoodwin.com/

Of course it does, somebody whether it is a nation or a website or a piece of paper has to host your speech. Otherwise it will just be thoughts inside your brain.

I think society doesn't purposefully handle it at all currently, issues are solved by accident through simply waiting for new technologies to make all the old problems disappear. Sometimes a problem is so gigantic that no amount of spin and delusion can deny it and then things do tend to get fixed but usually with a few new problems in there as well. Regarding your game theory question: One group being immovable in thought inevitably leads to either that group gaining more members or new immovable groups forming to fight that contender at the same level.

I think adoption could be improved so much if the standards commitee released a javascript and C library for whatever they end up deciding. The javascript implementation should be heavily commented, super easy to understand and basically be the documentation of the standard and the C library (or libraries) should be performance tuned tiny modules that can be called upon by other languages. You may ask: Why javascript? Well the reasons are too many to enumerate and immediately 50 people would come here to disagree and say that they prefer their own language but basically it boils down to there being no fancy features to get in the way of understanding an algorithm. The reasons for C are almost the same, it's easy to understand but with the added advantage of being interopable with just about anything on the planet and fast.

Even for http2 after many many years and lots of searching, you basically have to use nghttp2 as the only usable http2 C library and its source code is mixed together with various c++ components. Isn't it always like this? I mean don't these standards committees have to write the algorithms out anyway, why not make a usable module out of it in source code form? I suspect it's because in reality the standard gets sponsored by Google whose engineers have already written c++ implementations that are tied to dozens of their own libraries and subcomponents and integrated into the chrome build system etc etc. Well that still doesn't change the fact that it would be better for everyone else if they released a simple to understand implementation in js and C.

That's awesome, it's a real problem that I have to deal with. In my case Blizzard Entertainment refused to delete my information. They wanted me to actually send a copy of my passport to them in a physical letter to "verify" me. Crazy right? The entire idea of deleting my information is so that they do not possess even more information of mine. I might use this to contact them.

We all know what will happen next, they will make a new proposal under a friendler title with better deceptive phrases with extra goodies thrown in to gain just enough of an edge to make it pass with the ambiguous text that they want to have passed.

According to some other comments that wee little feature is the act of actually transferring money. Apparently you can't just send and receive money easily, you have to do it by sending files to the other person. Sounds insane, doesn't it? But your comment about the song name typing really made me laugh and think about this.

You are speaking from inside the walled garden here, from the outside the effort of porting to macOS is monumental. The naive way is: I have to buy hardware, learn new Apple specific languages, learn a new OS, learn a new IDE, be compliant with their app store policies, distribution etc. (which applies to Windows now too I suppose).

Edge had some unique fullscreen integration with the Win10 app model and some really fast speed initially. But it became surprisingly buggy, I mean that really: it has a lot of glitches, sometimes crashes and weird bugs with bookmark folders on my computer. No idea if this is common but I never had these problems with other browsers. What I also find incredible is that at some point they changed the superior way of dragging tabs out into windows into the way that Firefox does it. With Chrome you drag a tab out and you get a full live(!) view of the window as you drag it. Now as with Firefox, you just drag the tab box thing around and once you drop it then it expands into a window.

Probably because Europe as a supposed shining beacon of enlightenment is the absolute last place that should diminish its influence in the world by producing less offspring.

In my opinion they should print all the annotations with their respective times to the description of the videos that still have them, with a remark like

"Google Backup of annotations:

03:01-3:35 annotation text content"

"Rogue actor" is currently a highly political term, so I left that aspect out on purpose. For China you would be a rogue actor if you reported truthfully on free speech issues. For the USA you are a rogue actor if you report on their unconstitutional spying apparatus. It's neither morally nor politically unambigious what a rogue actor is. Such is life in a world where we all have a different morality, talking becomes hard!

Probably ironically you're arguing for a very authoritarian, nationalist view of the world where we can't allow any foreign information to hurt the fragile minds of our brittle citizens. In my opinion the tool called Facebook has shown us the real state of our society, the poor state of critical thinking in people and possibly the lack of morality in general. To call for simpler times back when only our own country was able to manipulate us, is a splash of romanticism.

Foxnews proving to me that their latest article is actually from them only helps people who already trust that source. The reason why Assange etc. post signatures is because they dont have control over Twitter. The ownership of the domain already is a form of authentication/signature that is more than sufficient for just about everybody and source authentication definitely is not the main problem that fakenews is about. Verifiying that the author is who you think it is, is probably the smallest, most insignifant part of fakenews. Much more central is that the content isnt false. How do we prove that something is false? We usually can't, so we could at best try to find flaws in their thinking or quotes that are wrong and say 'probably false'. That's what fact checker sites are doing, they give out grades. In my opinion the approach of fact checker sites is the best we can do so far, the problem however is now identical to mainstream news: Corruption. These fact checkers inevitably mess up or maximize their grading to achieve goals for their ideology of purse, which has arguably already happened and now we dont trust factcheckers anymore either.

Maybe this is an uncomfortable thing to say but this entire escapade with fakenews may just be a natural cycle that happens when corruption becomes too much and competition is emerging. So if we accept that reasoning then fakenews is just one ugly side effect but there are also good side effects, like new news sites emerging which may use outrageous new content to get viewers or superior ethics as their selling point. Hopefully the latter prevails but the cycle of gaining / losing trust will continue for as long as human beings are fallible.

Ha that is interesting, but does that really apply to our fake news problem nowadays? Let's say a fake news site creates an article "Obama died in a hospital visit 3 weeks ago and was replaced by a robot."

Should we now make 150 different websites that spread 150 slightly different versions of this, who would gain from that? I'm just thinking out loud. Oh I think your point is that one of those 150 links would have to contain the truth and the rest of the 150 would slowly edge towards it. Kind of like this:

"Obama was injured and then replaced by a robot" "Obama was injured and then was given robotic implants to heal" "Obama was injured and given a pacemaker" "Obama visited the hospital for a routine checkup, minor cold revealed" "Obama did not visit the hospital 3 weeks ago, he was at a campaign rally"

Would you really say that you have helped the internet/humanity if you did that to every fake news link? Even if this is so sophisticated that it autogenerated new domains, new content... people would just revert to following CNN/Foxnews/[standard outlet]. Then the people who read these fakenews links will have an even harder time to figure out who to trust. Or is it maybe the goal to push people towards mainstream news outlets? I can only imagine that as a result of such an approach.

Supposedly it works, as described a section below: https://apple.github.io/foundationdb/configuration.html#chan...

But yeah, the entire point of my comments in this thread is that the database should be telling me exactly what my options are at any situation if there are any. Judging by your comments it seems that you have also encountered a silent "deadlock" and the database gave no indication of what the hell was going on. That's the key here: The database silently stopped working, right? For something as critical as a database with possibly very important data, this just isn't acceptable to me. I want to be told as if I'm a complete noobie user what I have to do and why and what is going on with my data. The database is not a place where I feel the need to put on my smartypants hat, it's where I want to be taken care of completely.

I havent tested that it does work as described but the docs say that the cluster stops working entirely unless the cluster size corresponds to the configured replication. Seen here: https://apple.github.io/foundationdb/configuration.html#conf...

Look under "double" mode or "triple" mode. Is this why it maybe didn't work for you?

To me it's several things: 1. I don't know how stable foundationdb actually is. You say it's tested and very performant but simply starting fdbmonitor on localhost with two processes and then starting fdbcli, it takes 5.6 seconds to get a connection. Typing 'status' takes even longer (before I have a database configured). Why does it take so long for me to get back an error? What could possibly justify that kind of delay? I know I'm saying the word 'should' a lot of times but in my mind it should be practically instant, especially if there is no network trip involved and you know all the servers that I configured. Secondly, the errors are scary to me. "The coordinator(s) have no record of this database. Either the coordinator addresses are incorrect, the coordination state on those machines is missing, or no database has been created." The error "The database is unavailable" is equally scary. I don't even have a database yet but sometimes I feel like I did create one and then I imagine myself getting that error in production because of some simple or not so simple mistake and I think:

What would I even be doing if the coordinator state is missing? That sounds like a critical internal issue to me, is this really something I need to find out and if it is, why does the error not tell me how to check this or repair it?

Another thing: Right after I create a database with 'configure new single memory', I get in 'status': " Moving data - unknown (initializing) Sum of key-value sizes - unknown " Is this really such an edge case that the database cannot give me meaningful information on what is going on with my data right now? That is very scary to me. It should be able to tell me what is going on with the data, this is the simplest possible moment. I just created a database 5 seconds earlier and I run a status command. Now the database is apparently in an unknown state. What I would like to get is a realtime progress bar of where data is moving and why, with percentage numbers indicating the progress and if there is any error it should actually tell me the location of the log file.

The other big question mark is: I dont know if I can truly configure everything correctly so I actually get the performance that is advertised, there seem to be a lot of things I need to consider and configure exactly the right way in order to get the correct performance as I've read on the forums, from the number of processes to start, to all kinds of other configuration issues. Somebody actually made a guide and I'm thankful for this but in my opinion I should not need to worry about any of this, foundationdb should scan what CPUs/disks I have and suggest the optimal solution/configuration. These are simple rules, shouldnt they be automatically done? Imagine how many people are running foundationdb suboptimally just because they didnt know that the default naive way of starting a few processes and letting them do some work is horribly wrong.

The third issue is: What matters is how the performance will look after I did all my fancy custom layers on top and when I had to emulate all the stuff that was builtin by mongodb and whether this thing is actually as reliable and performant as it says it is. When I look at the issues I enumerated in the beginning, it really doesn't feel good to me.

This wouldn't be bad if I could uninstall that app but the button is gray on my machine. Same for the Xbox apps that I am guaranteed to never need. Weird feeling.

Maybe the jesuit order did very little or nothing to spread catholicism, as their mission was described to combat poverty and health issues. We can see this kind of faith divorced service in catholic missions and hospitals. They don't require anything in return, not even the time to sit through a sermon.

The study is still incomplete until you figure out whether the belief in God and specifically the bible are actually what helped retain the knowledge and work ethic over multiple generations and how it compares to atheist/muslim/[other religion] communities. Instead we get a bold claim that education itself is enough to help people when maybe the bible or religious belief in general was a primary ingredient in that help.

It's just an elaborate form of calling somebody stupid by implying that they don't consciously think about their decisions by means of having an inner dialogue. For twitter to ban this is weird but hey, I guess they are moving more towards the european model of free speech if they aren't already there.

I dont think that there is anything wrong with Jira apart from the fact that it's slow. Other than that it has a lot of great features. I looked for an alternative for a long time, in my opinion nothing comes close to jira and it has only gotten better.

"And in math papers notation is often invented on the spot. [...] It can mean whatever the author felt like that day. Maybe it's quandle product! Maybe multiplication. Who knows."

This shows another longtime insight I think I have on math, I think tool-wise we are in the stone age of math. Every formula somebody writes down should automatically be an executable program that can be debugged or at the very least that has intellisense/autocomplete/documentation pop up over its symbols. Forget executability for now but even just having a convenient way of parsing a formula, havings its notation explained to you automatically.. that would be so important. Also I don't think that a math notation which has symbols that don't even exist on ascii keyboards should be acceptable. To me, math notation is a programming language like any other and it shouldn't be so hard to write it, find documentation for it, get autocompletion for it and to verify it. I get that math was invented in the time of paper and pencil but we need to find a way to write math more efficiently on the computer now so we can get better and faster at it, so people can copy and paste math on the internet without having to use picture formats or specialized software to render it. You probably agree that the vast majority of math papers are never read by more than two people, the original author and the reviewer. Imagine the alternative: Every paper could be like a programming library that should be plug&playable on the spot without even understanding it. Just hit that button on the top of the paper that reads "play" or "execute" and let's see the testcases/subproofs/partial proofs running green in a checklist. Then let's read the API docs to get which final formulas are usable to me now that you wrote this paper. Whoever sits at these prestigious journals in my opinion is already being paid for this very job: to make sure that papers are accessible. Well to me that also means development of tooling, conventions, etc. Not just a simple online search box where you might find a whole paper via a keyword.

"Is mathematics invented, or discovered?" is a never-ending debate."

I think that this is the wrong focus because I heard this question when I was younger and it made no sense to me. The act of asking that question (often playfully, probably somehow already admitting thereby that it's a wasteful question which is surprising in itself) was confusing to me because intuitively I think we all know the answer, it's obvious. But as soon as you ask, you imply that it's an open debate and thereby create confusion. Everybody already knows the answer: Math is obviously an invention in most ways because humans invented the symbols but it's also obviously an approximation of something inherent in the universe. We may not know the exact percentages of how close we are to the universe's true inner workings but that wasn't the question anyway.

I will read your link.

"How mathematics works rests on no absolute timeless standard, despite what many assume today, given its precision and efficacy"

Exactly this is key to teach people to like math, stop trying to train me in it. It's like math has become so saddled with politics or ego that people want to train everybody in the same system of values and they are willing to lie to get you to use to the same symbols, the same way of thinking, etc. Disclaimer, I'm really bad at math. But I hate how math and physics are taught, it should always be taught from a spirit of exploration as if you are discovering new islands or continents and you get to name the things you discover. Try getting a math professor to admit that he doesn't actually have an intuitive understanding for any of the stuff he teaches. I believe the vast majority probably don't have any such understanding but they are understandably scared to admit it. It's a cycle of lies. Who are you to say that I have to use that particular symbol or term to describe this math? People have a large stake in interopability between mathematicians so they teach us these symbols as if they are facts of nature when in reality they are just arbitrary drawings that people invented to name stuff that they found in nature. Fields of math stack on top of each other because they happen to work together but in reality we dont know why. They just do and it's interesting that they do so we keep doing it that way because it works and hasnt broken yet and it's useful. There were cultures that did math with a completely different set of symbols, not just symbols but even way of thinking. Multiplication, addition, entire base ideas were thought of differently. Yet our current way of doing math is taught to us as dogmatic, accept it or you are a troublemaker. No wonder people dont like math, nobody wants to be a slave to somebody else's ideas and value system. Every math class should start with something like "This is the symbol for addition: '+'. This was invented by some person, you could use something else, you could try to find some other way to add numbers but the way we teach you to think has proven to be fairly fast and convenient so we teach it." That in my opinion is how you make people interested in math because you treat them as equals instead of subjects to be trained in your favorite cultural way of doing math. Math should be seen like a weird natural phenomenon that we observe, from the getgo. From childhood on. Explain it like that and I believe kids (and adults) will love to discover more about it.

I think that the solution is clear, make a language server for the command line. Each and every single command line interface is its own language so they all need their own language server that can provide meaningful completions. Then bash and other shells can add support for language servers and we have the problem solved.

I think people instinctively refuse to parse analogies because it's too much work for too little reward. Practically every time somebody starts to use an anology it becomes an anology battle because of course it wasn't perfect. Secondly it's like trying to prove a point by introducing a bunch of weird mental tricks. Yeah you might have a point there but it's rude to expect me to parse all this extra made up stuff you just throw at me. If you have a point, you can make it without an anology.

I have the same opinion on fallacies, practically every single time somebody says "wait, you just used a fallacy" it's wrong, it doesn't matter or he himself just used five fallacies by pointing that out. It's an endless battle over magic words that have so much social weight behind them that using them should be forbidden in any serious debate. That's my personal, very unpopular opinion.

It does seem weird that this would be lauded. I want my browser to be completely independent of what I'm doing on the website because there is no telling what the browser might be doing on my OS and frankly if I want to sign into a website, I will. It's not any of my browser's business what I do on the websites I visit. This seems like a fundamental part of sandboxing but maybe other people don't see it that way.

I imagine more and more so called convenient features might come where Chrome can suddenly install entire Windows apps, clean my files, and replace my OS. Then again, why not. Who am I to tell Google how to compete, maybe they can replace Windows with something better by gradually bloating up Chrome into an OS inside an OS.

I had some legitimately scary things that may or may not be tracking but I cannot explain it without tracking. I watch some youtube video where the audio mentions a historic place of battle and then seconds later it shows up in my Google Chrome autosuggestion because I wanted to google some more information on it. I dont see how that is possible, it was a very specific location. I only typed "battle of" and it showed me the exact battle that was just mentioned in the video. I dont see how that is possible unless Google has transcribed the audio of all the videos automatically and uses it for search suggestions. It was nothing I ever searched before, in fact I searched many many other battles and places before that one so it would make more sense for it to show me something I searched previously.