earthboundkid

I mean, I use NPM, but I'm making a small traffic news site with no APT enemies. If you're making a wallet and think "Yes, auto-updating dependencies sounds like a good idea," maybe you're not very good at security?

I think a good comparison is how long it takes for people to make games on the PlayDate. The PlayDate has a weak processor by modern standards, but it also has a lot of modern little touches and a modern SDK.

Yoyozo[1] is a recently released PlayDate game. The first toot about working on it on Mastodon[2] is from Sept. 5 and it got into the PlayDate store on Nov. 21. Elsewhere the creator said he put about a month into it. So a lone dev working on a legacy-like platform can launch a game in a month. I think Yoyozo doesn't have quite as much depth as Donkey Kong (not as many screens, no enemies), but it was made by a lone dev, so it probably all balances out. I think people are basically still capable of the same level of output, maybe a little higher, if they're willing to work on a limited platform.

[1]: https://blog.gingerbeardman.com/2023/11/21/yoyozo-how-i-made...

[2]: https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@gingerbeardman/1110136615210...

Am I the only one who watched a movie in the 1980s? C'mon people.

Why would you use Word on purpose?

For anyone who cares: https://github.com/earthboundkid/Watsuji-and-Aesthetics/blob...

I spent my whole grad school procrastinating by working on a system for publishing my papers, which turned out to be the only marketable skill I got from my PhD, so I wouldn’t knock procrastinating.

Also with a lot of the French philosophers, there’s an assumption that you’ve already had a standard Sorbonne education, and now you’re ready for a revisionist interpretation of some fundamental questions in the standard model, but if you’re just coming to it as an American undergrad, you’re missing a lot of the context, so the revision makes no sense.

I have a package that makes it easier to do the “use a glob of files as golden test cases” thing mentioned in the middle of the talk: https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/carlmjohnson/be@v0.23.2/testfi...

That’s tinnitus.

I was really hoping this would be about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Dangerous_Idea#Skyh...

I guess I was thinking of that time the IRA almost got Thatcher, but yeah, either way it's tossing gasoline onto a fire to be like "what if Scotland too?"

If I wanted a big picture, I would look at the docs to get the overview of the public interfaces. Once you're in the file, you're tracing execution for the most part.

That makes the file backwards because main calls foo which calls bar, so it should be main, foo, bar; not bar, foo, main when you read it.

Are y’all reading files top to bottom? This is weird to me. I pretty much just follow execution using jump to definition, and I rarely read something top to bottom in a way that having sections would be helpful.

2to3 was a bungle. Python 3 was dead until six came out, which had an actual plan for upgrading that works (forward compatibility) instead of automatic rewriting, which does not work.

It doesn’t matter if the conflict is important. It matters if there’s a chance of having a positive impact on the outcome. There’s no chance of that for Ethiopia. There’s at least a small possibility of that for Israel because America is tightly connected to key players and has a lot of leverage.

Filming this seems like a really dumb idea? I mean, maybe the Troubles weren't as bad yet as they would get in the 80s, but still seems like broadcasting this would have been very likely to ignite more conflict in Ireland and even copycat violence in Scotland. It would be like making a movie where R Anon marches on the White House to assassinate imposter President John Bidden and not expecting it to cause some crazy person to use it as a blueprint. It's just irresponsible. As a book? Okay, maybe, sure, you can explore dangerous ideas in a book. But making a BBC movie is really inviting disaster.

I am aware of the conflict in the Ethiopia region. I have Ethiopian/Eritrean neighbors and friends. I remember the last time there was peace being happy for them. But I don't think there's any chance that the US government could successfully intervene in the conflicts there in such a way as to make a lasting peace more likely. It just doesn't have the capacity for that. We don't know the players and any thumb we put on the scale will just imbalance the whole thing.

In the Gaza War, the US has direct personal and financial ties to one of the main actors in the conflict. Now, if someone said, "The US should do more to influence Hamas," I would say that's not really possible because we have no connections or leverage over their behavior. They are connected to Iran and Qatar and their own people, but they don't really care what we think of them. But we have fairly decent leverage on the Netanyahu government. So when I advocate for the US to do things with relation to the Gaza War it is all about changing the behavior of the Israeli government, and not something else we don't really affect.

I'm sorry to see you go. Yes, this is HN at its absolute worst and most self-entitled.

Boy, it must be hard when you want someone to take a minor step to make it easier for you to understand or use some software, but your values aren't shared by the community of software makers, so they don't do it.

Transclusion means that .a in this can escape the Shadow DOM: <my-element><div class="a">Transcluded content</div></my-element>

To do the same thing in CSS you would do <div class="myelement"><div class="slot"><div class="a">Transcluded content</div></div></div> @scope (.myelement) to (.slot) { /* rules that apply to .myelement but not .a */ }).

Transclusion can totally be done with CSS now. That’s a donut selector.

The other things are just plain old JavaScript and have nothing to do with Shadow DOM. Yes, they can be done with customElement, but they can also just be done without it.

Those are the tough years, yes. Hold on. When they're 3 and 5, it will be easier to get them to go in the same direction. Especially when everyone is potty trained.

It is a scientific fact that grandparents have forgotten every damn thing they learned about child rearing, because they never did any of this crap when I was a kid.

One of the things you learn when you have more than one kid is that kids have their own personalities, and you have to adapt to them to a certain degree. With kid one, she would have terrible crying jags and she needed a lot of coaching to stop falling to pieces very easily. With kid two, he has a much better degree of control, but then the tantrums are more physical and less emotional.

The other thing you learn is that no plan survives contact with the enemy.

You could use srcdoc="..." to simulate a component, except that iframes don't have automatic height adjustment, which is the thing they should actually fix.

In any event, shadow DOM is just a worse version of scope selectors. There's not really a good use for it now that you can just do a style reset on a donut selector inside an import layer. It can all be done declaratively with CSS instead of using an imperative JS API that has a ton of gotchas.

"Web Components" are the name for a dream, not an actual technology. The actual technologies involved -- customElement and shadow DOM -- are pretty crappy to use directly, and even when hidden behind a framework/library don't buy you that much. But people want it to be true that there is such a thing as a "Web Component" so the dream lives on.

No, they just lock you into one framework per component. I don't know why people say obviously false stuff like this about web components besides they just really, really want it to be true. Yeah, if you're willing to have the same framework on the page ten times, you can just chuck them all in separate script tags using the custom element API. But if you care about making a performant page with progressive enhancement, etc. this is a bad strategy.

Even the name "web components" is basically just marketing fluff. When people say "web component", they mean using two particular DOM APIs: customElement and shadow DOM. Those are both pretty niche APIs. There are some cases where they are helpful, but 99% of the time, they don't add much to a project versus good old querySelectorAll and normal CSS.

Interesting glitch. There must be some kind of loop in the “neurons” due to insufficient training data?

What if the AGI is an adherent of Russian cosmism?