browserface

Underrated comment. Reply anticipation: this is not reddit. Preemptive response, I know, doesn't change the fact that this comment is underrated :);p xx

Only thing I want to add: not yet, maybe with CRISPR and artificial wombs there could be some way.

That sounds about right. Approx 50 million deaths per year in that frame. 50 years....2.5 billion deaths. So 2.5+1.5 births and 1.5 deaths a second. If you round up deaths to whole numbers, 3 deaths per 2 seconds, maybe that's the error, adding the 3 deaths per 2 seconds to 2.5 deaths per 1 second. Or 8 births and 3 deaths every 2 seconds. Or 1 death every 700ms.

The crazy thing is there has only been 1.6 billion seconds since 1970. There have been more babies since 1970 than there have been seconds. Which is crazy.

Back then, Earth's population was on 3.7 billion. Now it's 7.8 billion. That means that (ignoring deaths) 2.5 babies have been born for each unix second. Or roughly 1 baby every 400 milliseconds.

Oh, thanks so much for your replies. Really appreciate your attitude of taking that seriously and trying to mitigate. Not saying that from my point of view of thinking my error is somehow important, just from my experience putting work on HN, and knowing what it feels like when people let you know something goes wrong. Well done!

That was the error I got!

yeah exactly. good work

yeah a mountain or beach retreat would be cool

that would be cool

like 3d printer for cocktails

Damn I got an error at cell 19

otherwise seemed to work

I'm sure she'll be fine. She sounds like she already is. She might exceed you. People can teach themselves right?

This book looks good but I don't think I should start reading it, because I get the feeling it's going to let me want to create my own "powerful programming language" and be led down that (long, probably dark) rabbit hole.

That shouldn't be downvoted. That's a great point, even if most probably misinterpret. In Asia people really don't use email as primary comms in B2C or social for many things. People use LINE, WhatsApp, WeChat and other mail providers like qq or 163.

Still it's a 'mailto:' link which might not translate to those media. But a 'tel:' link could possibly translate to "Connect with LINE" or other options.

Anyway I think this project is a very good idea. These sort of protocol links are very useful, considering on mobile you are always app switching to share something. Unfortunately, mobile browsers don't support "navigator.registerProtocolHandler" but there might be workarounds for PWAs.

Yes there is. It's called "navigator.registerProtocolHandler"[0]

[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Navigator/r...

This is great. happy to see someone picking up Tesla's project of 100 years ago.

This is cool... but a tape deck? Or a pen and paper you scribble in the dark?

This is so cool. I like this guy's work. I want to see this stuff in a gallery. I mean that, I'm not being flippant or facetious.

thanks :) ;p xx

The degree seems to me to scale up. The sharehouse, the state. It's all the same thing. A sharehouse can be plenty coercive too. Parent - child ? Coercive. Personal relationships, they can be coercive too sadly. But "coercion" on the other side is just "the power of bad", it's psychology. Criticism and threats of penalties really do make people behave better. But it's complicated. Read "The Power of Bad".

And don't give me that complaints about immigration and means. An anarchist should be one for personal responsibility, choice, freedom and negotiation, should be able to bend reality to their will rather than complaining in the streets that it change, right? I guess I also wonder, what the hell do you replace the state with? I mean, states didn't just "magically appear" out of nowhere. They're born out of history of blood and death and suffering and overcoming endless civilizational challenges (Read "Why the West Still Rules For Now"), and I think there's a chance they're our current best solutions to the problem of organizing for stability.

If anarchism was a powerful personal philosophy, a couple rules and regulations would be not barrier. All is negotiation and anarchists are apparently adept at such. I don't get it. Sorry.

Why submit to the sharehouse bitch, but rail and wail against the state? I don't get it. It's the same dynamic. I think if you put the state on a pedestal over you, it's like a type of daddy complex where you are giving away your power. It's all just life. There's no getting around that's it's gonna be hard. Anarchists seem like they want to adapt and thrive, but then they're also complaining. I think their ideology has been misused and they're having an identity crisis.

I appreciate your responses and attitude and I'm not trying to be offensive to you. I'm tapping out of this discussion because I think it's a waste of time to discuss in this age, but I do appreciate your style. Best of luck to you both!

You might agree with most of what I wrote, and disagree with the last paragraph, that's OK, there's plenty of room for diverse opinions, but then I guess my idea is not new to you, except the last paragraph which must be difficult for you to read.

I think anarchism might be one of those ideologies, that has been misused by rabble rousers to get foot soldiers to do street violence for some cause where the strings are pulled by higher ups. Probably this is a perversion of the true ideals of anarchists, so it's hard today to tell what those are.

But to anyone reading it who thinks of themselves as an anarchist, you'll down vote because it's true and instantly disproves your cherished anarchist ideals, so to protect yourself and your worldview from that you need to pretend it's wrong.

I get it and that's OK for you to do that for you. :) I'm not saying this here for you. I'm saying this here for me. It's a big world out there. Plenty of room for different opinions and experiences.

It's not possible to change people's minds on the internet. They change if they're ready themselves, nothing to do with me, or people respond with hostility to new/unfamiliar information, it doesn't matter if it's correct, like me saying anarchists get arrested for stupid shit, but then explained away as "not true anarchists". I'm not writing here to discuss with people or try to contribute to their perspectives. I'm just writing my points for myself. If people agree with me, I think it's low value because the idea was not new enough. If people disagree, downvote or fight with me, I think it's a waste of my time. Either way, it's a waste of time to engage with others online about ideas. But I think it's good for me to write, but not necessarily put it up here. Sometimes I do tho because I think I like to see my point recorded publicly. I guess that's just vanity, and meaningless. Maybe I should stop that. The noise of agreement or fighting is meaningless. What matters is to think for yourself. Who cares what other people think about ideas? They will be hostile if your ideas is outside their ken, and meaninglessly agreeable otherwise. Either way, your idea should have value to you in your knowing of it. It shouldn't be about them.

I realized I wasted so much time in the past "discussing" on online forums. Now I see it for what it is.

If anarchists are anarchists, they shouldn't be cowed by "top down" rules, they should be able to find a way round them, to suit themselves, without destroying themselves. So that it's "not easy" to change countries shouldn't stop an "anarchist" because they're all about negotiation, personal responsibility and choice, and freedom right? Anarchists shouldn't be people crying in the streets how unfair it is that "big brother" is ruining their pathetic little lives. They should be the men and women of action, calculating and executing their next move for their maximum benefit, and possibly for humankind too.

And if it's voluntary, isn't everything voluntary? I voluntarily accept the social contract, or I end up in jail. I voluntarily accept the laws of physics, or I end up maimed or worse. Voluntary speaks to choice, which everyone has. But negotiated...I don't expect most sharehouses (or workplaces, or schools, or whatever) that you enter as a fresher will make their rules negotiable to you. But to another extent, in "advanced" society, the "law" is negotiable through he courts and lawyers, and blackmail, and in "less developed" society, negotiable through bribes and so on. I don't get where anarchism fits in.

It seems like, either it's something that doesn't make sense (no rules) but people believe it zealotly and use it as disguise for violence, or it's something that can work (rules and choice) but not something that works as some standalone organizing principle of a society that is somehow in opposition to the world today. I mean if anarchism is against society, isn't that oxymoron, because if you're anarchist, you can just exercise your choice and negotiate your way to a better situation for yourself? So you don't have to "change the world" just bend it to how you want it locally.

Am I being too sophist? I don't think so but I seem to be missing some point to anarchism. I might just not get what anarchism is, or maybe I don't want to get it. But it seems like it doesn't make sense to me.

It might be me, but anarchy seems to be having an identity crisis.

I get that you see it that way. I think that might be shifting the goalposts of anarchism in the face of criticism, and I suspect the appeal to "zero rules" can be brought back later in less critical contexts.

But I appreciate the expanded perspective you've given me. So...voluntary association, but still having rules and organizing. OK, sounds alright.

How is that different to the current global system? I mean it like, I was born in country A, then traveled to country B and C, and discovered actually I didn't like the culture and rules in country A, so I came to live in countries B and C. I can go where I like to choose the system of governance that suits me. None of these countries are anarchist....If anarchism speaks more to the relationship between an individual and a system, and less to the system itself, is it really a system of organization that could replace a social/political system, isn't it more just like a "guiding philosophy" for some individuals? Or a way of describing a set of things that some people might do, even if they are not "anarchists".

It might be me, but anarchy seems to be having an identity crisis.

Anyone who has ever lived in a share house (or next to one) knows that without laws civilization will descend into absolute chaos and endless tit for tat revenge warfare.

Try parenting with anarchist principles.

At some point you run into limits. The point is, what imposes those limits? Physics, gravity, society or yourself?

Ideally the limits you put on yourself should mean you never encounter (negatively or destructively) any of the other systems of limits. But, not all people are capable of always limiting or controlling themselves, and no...that's not the fault of their being "arbitrary restrictions" or "ludicrous laws" and it's not a "reaction against meaningless oppressive authority", it's just people are not perfect and not always good at acting in a way that doesn't put them up against the other sources of limits.

Even if someone has perfect self-control. Who says they have perfect knowledge of the limits, which if they were to cross them would bring about their destruction or detriment, in any given situation?

You should be the source of truth and guide for your life, but I don't think you can expect to know everything and avoid all risks if you only pay attention to what you think is OK and ignore signals from elsewhere. I think you need to balance it with acknowledging that other people and society has some fucking clue about that stuff as well. It's not perfect either, but you shouldn't not factor it into your decisions.

If anarchists were so clever at charting their own courses, how come they end up getting arrested for stupid shit? I suppose they're "not true anarchists".

Yeah, I like that. Or fractional_ratio. With part_ratio tho I'm still not sure which part... (the lesser or greater than 1) part. But I like it because it's shorter. Frac_ratio feels like cheating a bit.

But I guess a number that's always between 0 and 1 is an integer reciprocal. But again that's probably getting too deep for this.

I guess another way is UnitIntervalPoint or ProperFraction

I guess in Java we don't have to choose

FractionalPartRatioForAccuracyNormalized hehehe

I suppose we could make up a word

bition, or bitum

anabit or cobit - analog bit (continuous on 0 to 1)

proratio - proper ratio

Making up a word seems easier than the rest because it's more concise. :)

David Malouf writes about similar phenomena. I think he even uses a similar term "waves of thought emanating out from somebody around the room" or something, effecting other people.

Yes, I was thinking something like proper ratio but I don't think that's standard plus I think it's getting pedantic.

The takeaway is words are mostly a leaky abstraction, imperfect model for math concepts.

But I guess if you're a clever programmer you could call it a ThielAccuracy, or ThielRatio

cargo events? freight events? shipment events? transport events? manifest events? payload events? package events?

Okay cool thanks

Ratio? Probability? Proportion?

Out of the answers there I like AccuracyNormalized best.

That immediately conveys (to me at least) what it is and what its magnitude will be bounded by.

Or...if you were writing Java or Swift

NonNegativeMagnitudelessFractionalQuantity

Thanks for those ideas, that's super useful. And Screenjar looks awesome! The not working on mobile issue is a reason I wanted to build this so it can be delivered everywhere.

About sessions:

How would clients feel about providing a "login link" for their support customers to login (that is single use and wouldn't expose credentials), and could even be tied to whitelisted IPs for the service?

I've thought about this as well, I don't know if there's an easy solution to get around having people login. Of course if they already have an specific extension installed you could "transfer" the session cookies to the remote browser, but again this is not great for security-appearance. It's easy enough to discard the credentials or provide guarantees they are redacted from recordings but I suppose it depends on how clients and their customers view it.

Thanks, I'm really glad you thought it was awesome. Sorry for the questions but I think you could have some really useful feedback. What do you mean by user testing? what would you find particularly useful?

I've been told to do a bug replay feature to record exactly what a user tried to do and what went wrong.

Another consequence of this age we live in, that I recently discovered is it's basically impossible to change anyone's mind on the internet. It's not just because it's strangers, or because it's text, tho that does make it harder. It's the dynamic I state above. I used to think it was worth sharing and discussing ideas because maybe I could contribute to somebody else. Now I realize that nobody can change their mind because of what I do. If they somehow did change their mind, they were simply open and ready for it from their own state, and it was accidental that I was involved, it could have been another person or idea. If I bring to them really valuable (as in really surprising) information (the highest quality ideas), the dynamic above ensures they cannot hear it and must respond with hostility. And the lowest quality ideas are ones where people agree with what I say, since those ideas are already widely known. So I have learned to let go of wanting to share my ideas with people online and discuss, or being upset about downvotes. Downvotes mostly indicate quality and entropy. Nowadays I only say what I want for myself...and don't get into discussions, because it's just people trying to prove they're right, prove someone else is wrong, protect their worldview, just pathetic stuff, and I don't want to be part of it.

Thanks for saying that. Yeah, it is about this time we live in. It's like the internet was supposed to make us all more open minded to new info, but instead all the unfamiliar-to-each-of-us-info made us all more hard-shelled and narrow minded. So anything not part of our worldview is a scary threat that we need to respond with hostility to.

It doesn't matter what's true. It matters what confirms existing biases. Paradoxically I think people used to be more open minded before the internet, because it was safe to be. They weren't swimming in a infinite ocean of unfamiliar new ideas, they could afford to be open without much risk of having to do the hard work of challenging their beliefs and updating their worldview at every turn.

It is totally about marketing budget as well. In this age of "outside my worldview is fearful, I must respond with hostility" a consequence is you get more group-think and safety in numbers type behavior. So it is easy with enough capital to create these tribes of zealots for particular stacks. It's not adaptive, it's not true, but that doesn't matter. It's safe and comforting.

I just don't wanna work with tools that suck, as I guess you don't too.