cal85

How do you know this? Not disagreeing, just curious.

The problem is FUD. Some guy at a company gets told he has to wait for legal to approve some open source project or initiative that happens to use JS in the name, because his boss heard there’s a trademark issue, and the enthusiasm fades and the idea gets sidelined. There’s probably been thousands of tiny little instances of FUD like that, which we’d never hear about, and which have led to good things not happening.

One clear instance of FUD we do know about is the spec itself is not titled with the name of the language it specifies, which is then its own source of confusion for newcomers trying to learn the web platform, and makes it harder for old timers to explain things, and is generally annoying. Complexity. Confusion. Doubt. Inaction.

Removing legal FUD from the world is a good cause. I don’t mind if it also works as a good marketing play for Deno.

They thought of that and called the spec ECMAScript instead.

Because it’s written in vanilla JS.

Camouflage in what sense?

Had same issue until I disconnected from Tailscale, in case that helps anyone.

They seem to be actively working on vertical tabs for Chromium right now: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/q/message:+vertical...

> I think there really are people who can visualize that apple.

Based on what evidence?

True. But it feels like a fairer comparison would be with a huge healthcare company that failed to vet one of its therapists properly, so a crazy pro-suicide therapist slipped through the net. Would we petition to shut down the whole company for this rare event? I suppose it would depend on whether the company could demonstrate what it is doing to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

It's not an em-dash, it's an en-dash, which is rare in LLM output. Also just stop being insufferable.

Or, when you do go looking, it doesn’t feel the same. Why?

The last sentence can’t be true. If you go looking for them, they’re easy to find. The problem is you don’t.

> That needs to be solved. Seems like an easy solve. Just don't do it.

I don’t do it, but I’m not sure how that solves the problem of other people doing it.

The post says why.

The difference is that social media now exists. The fear of an embarrassing or compromising moment causing social embarrassment at an unlimited scale or affecting future employment prospects indefinitely is not based on nothing - we have all seen examples of this. Even an unlikely scenario is worth considering if the stakes are that high.

This situation compounded very gradually. In the late 90s, it was extremely common for young people to make each other laugh by doing dumb things in public (sometimes knowingly on camera) that they’d never expect to be seen by a wide audience. Then in the early 00s, the experience of going a little viral (just within your college Facebook community, before the word ‘viral’ was a thing) was actually pretty common and this started to make people just a little more guarded about being photographed. So those who got filmed doing something drunk/dumb would be more likely to go more viral, as it was now a rarer sight. And so on. It’s a recursive effect that made us all duller and more image-conscious and anxious in public. This process took a couple of decades to end up where we are now. It’s not just some new modern prissiness.

7 gigabytes? With a “G”? That must take 10s of seconds, minutes even. And for what, a ‘good experience’? Humans make no sense to me either.

> I'm not saying it's wrong but people are reacting to this as if the Times university guide is some objective truth.

I can’t see a single example of anyone reacting to it that way.

The equivalent tailwind is to just put h-8 (or whatever it is) on whichever form elements and buttons you want to be that height. Tailwind recommends you never use `@apply` - it’s basically an escape hatch for weird, niche interop requirements if you’re not all-in on Tailwind.

What is it about your example that the tailwind approach (h-8) doesn’t achieve?

Billions of people willingly use banks, fast food chains etc. all the time.

I’d like to see an example!

yeah I can read it ok

I don’t understand what you mean, but I’d like to. I think it is obvious that we all need subscriptions to survive (if “we” means free adults, and excluding people who steal etc). Do you not agree? Please spell it out for me, I’m honestly intrigued to understand what you mean, and I am asking in good faith.

Don’t we all need subscriptions to stay alive?

Also the social penalty for being a grass, the risk of major embarrassment if you’re mistaken or if it can’t be proved, the risk of running into the accused person later outside. It doesn’t make any sense.

fair I retract “is not remotely relevant here” and offer “is not really relevant here”

nope, fire your lawyer. you get a common law trademark by trading under a name. no need to register it. TM registration is just to streamline big corps chasing after lots of small abusers in a wackamole way, that’s all. if the abuse in question is as egregious as “I used their product name, barely modified, to market my own thing, which is not just in the same general market but a literal clone of their product” then a judge is not going to say “Ah but I see they didn’t send in a form to register their trademark, so yeah carry on with blatantly stealing their work lol”

also trademark registration is not remotely relevant here

compliance with a github policy isn't really the issue lol

Wait is this a Lovable clone that is actually called open-lovable? That seems bold

If I understand right, this is about actual text chatbots, where they don't hide that it's an AI interview? I've not experienced one of those, but I don't think it would be as bad as the time I was interviewed by AI through a human relay on a video call. It took me a long time to realise. Sometimes I'd say something 'technical' and she'd say "Mmm yes, definitely," nodding lots while typing something, but I got the funny feeling she hadn't understood. So I recalibrated, but then a few questions later she'd say something that indicated she must have understood the technical thing I'd said earlier. So I thought: oh cool, I am talking with a fellow engineer after all – and I'd get a little more technical with my answers again. But then I'd get that same unconvincing nodding response. After a few rounds of this it hit me that I was being interviewed by an AI, relaying through a human who was smiling and laughing and chatting while not understanding what the AI and I were talking about. The rest of the interview felt really uncomfortable.