edave64

Yes, what a pitty. They will have to read that compilation error from the IDEs "compile" window and not the console. Or just see the red squiggly lines in the code. That is a problem for some reason.

And you know what happens when people use a black box and that stops working? They start learning how it works then. When it has actually any relevance for them. Until then it's just a more complicated way of doing things that doesn't benefit them in any way whatsoever.

I got introduced to YAML back when I first got into Ruby on Rails. At first it seemed really cool, nice to read and write

Then I tried to use it in one of my own projects and immediatly ran into issues. Mostly that it was difficult to judge what data structures you would get.

Massively different syntax could result in the exact same structre, slight changes could make it something completely different. I just really didn't like it :/

It's the logical conclusion. The clients machine is inherently untrusted. So how do ensure integrity? Best you can do is try to get to try to get as few layers between you and the machine as possible.

It's essentially the same problem as DRM, which generelly can only hope to prevent piracy for a few weeks. The solution of the movie industry there was to add there garbage directly to the hardware.

The fact that indirect messages are marked as unverifiable "hearsay" (seemingly regardless of how many peers confirm it), the fact you can only join the network if you peer with someone, and the bounce limit seems to imply that you would want to peer very liberally.

And the trick is that you can't just be DOSed by a peer, you can be DDOSed by the peers of your peers of your peers, as I see it.

Do you mean some technicality like "only broadcast messages" and the deduplication list or something that can actually stop DDOS?

There is also a bounce limit, but I would expect that (average number of peers) ^ 3 might be plenty amplification

The concept of the "SelfChain" confuses me. It sounds like it would fall apart completely for anything except direct messages. If one person goes offline and all other people continue to talk, does that mean the next day my station considers all other speakers "forked"? And I have to unfork all of them? It's not like I can catch up since all messages are stale and discarded after 15 minutes.

Do I allow a hearsay message to fork one of my peers? Can a rouge peer just come in, fork everyone, and leave?

I also don't see much DDOS proofing in this. Best I can find is that you can unpeer people, but since every message is rebroadcasted by everyone, that doesn't seem like much of a protection. Especially since, if the DDOSer has a lot of peers, it seems can be pretty imposible to know who the attacker even is, since there is no singed journal of hops or something.

> However, this article is overly focused on just one element of how React works.

Because that is the topic of the article.

It never even says "The virtual DOM overhead is a problem". It actually says exactly the opposite, it's often fast enough and not a problem. It didn't call Virtual DOM a meme, it called "the virtual DOM is fast" a meme.

Performance wise, as the article says, it is pure overhead. Virtual DOM is the solution to a problem the javascript frameworks create themselves.

I've had argue against managers that no, using a virtual DOM will not magically make our pure JS app run any faster. Especially once I put in the work to make the DOM as seldom accessed as I could.

There is a fantastic reason these JS frameworks work that way. Instead of building creating and update logic, you just need creation logic and always rebuild the widget. But that's super slow, so you use a virtual DOM to make it faster. Just not as fast as it would have been if you hadn't used the framework.

The tradeoff being that your code is often significantly simpler and easier to maintain. Though that also breaks down in some parts.

> Has anyone ever bought anything because they saw an ad? If anything ads cause me to not want to buy the product.

It is tempting to think that. And to think these ads have no influence on you.

But since marketing costs many companies tons of money and they happily pay it, I'm more inclined to believe that it works. Especially since the correlation between marketing budget and income is something that can be directly seen by these companies.

It's like how many Youtubers say the hate doing the "Like and subscribe" thing, but they can see in the analytics that videos where they say that perform better.

Also, attention isn't payment. You pay the marketing budget when you buy the product. Only you also pay with time, your bandwidth, your CPU time, electricity, sanity and privacy.

The idea that ads help us have things for free might be the greatest marketing stunt they have ever pulled

Probably not much of a cat-and-mouse game. Once they can bypass it once, all they have to do is not update. Unless Nvidia is prepared to release new hardware revisions every time.

People are buying these cards for other coins that are still profitable to mine on the GPU.