fizzbatter

I mean, sure - the design is pretty, but OSX has been terrible for me quality wise. I know what you mean about pretty, but currently i'm feeling like i need to pick between pretty (OSX) and stable (Linux).

Worse yet, is if i pick a stable variety of Linux, it's likely to not be pretty. The pretty Linux OSs (in my experience) tend to be at least as unstable as OSX. Ugh.

(Note: I upgraded to Sierra, crash or have weird crap happen ~4times a week)

edit: Why the downvote? Note that i explicitly stated this was my experience. Furthermore, i had the same experience when my Macbook Pro Retina was new, and came with OSX Mavericks. Both Mavericks and Sierra have gave me the impression that Apple releases unstable OSs for major versions, and need time to make it stable again.

I really wish someone would start a paid OS based on Linux and OSS tools. I'd happily pay $100/y (year being, new versions/etc) for a stable and awesome UI/UX.

As it is, my Macbook Pro Retina has been crashing a lot and doing weird things frequently since i upgraded to Sierra. Between that and the latest Macbook Pro notebooks, i just don't like Apple anymore. I'm pretty set on buying a highend laptop _(similar build quality to Apple)_ and putting Linux on it... but that's where the fun stops. Linux UIs tend to lag behind significantly.

I want a for-profit UI company working on a Linux UI. OSS just can't compete with Apple on design it seems.. and in my opinion, users shouldn't have to choose between OSS and pretty design.

It's bad enough that if/when i leave OSX, i lose a lot of my apps due to them not supporting (or not supporting competently) Linux, but losing apps and UX.. well, it's a tough pill to swallow.

This is cool! Though, it still leaves me with my biggest problem: I have no idea how to efficiently draw the diagrams in the first place. Ascii diagrams are not easy to draw (for me, atleast).

The best i've seen is a GUI tool that creates the diagrams. That tool really is awesome (https://monodraw.helftone.com/), but it's a GUI tool and frankly supports complexity/features far greater than i really need most of the time.

I'd love a project that took some type of simple text based flow notation, and converted it to ascii flow diagrams. Eg:

    main: something -> other thing -> [ thing a, thing b, thing c]
    thing a: thing a -> thing b
    thing c: thing c -> thing b

In this mockup, my desired tool would take this simple non-artistic notation and convert it to a flow diagram showing a `something` object leading into an `other thing` object, which branches to three objects called `thing a`, `thing b`, and `thing c`. Each of those have their own flows as well, as noted by their own respective definitions. `thing a` leads over to `thing b`, `thing c` to `thing b`, and `thing b` doesn't actually do anything.

I love ascii diagrams, but i never want to construct them by hand. Writing them out in some simple notation like above would be awesome! Also note that i'm not expecting this to be insanely feature packed.. it sort of defeats the purpose of a simple notation. But being able to just construct them quickly as a starting point would be awesome. Advanced tools like Monodraw can take the complicated work.

This is what i'm planning on. It'll be another ~year or so before i care, but i hope to find a very highend laptop that compares with Apple MacbookPro quality. Great keyboard, touchpad and very high PPI monitor. Then, put linux on it.

This Apple announcement really lost me. Luckily i don't care about the OS (i dislike it, infact), i just want really nice hardware because i use this laptop for ~10h a day.

This is really cool! I'm tempted to try and write something generic for this same concept, so i can use it in whatever lang and logging framework desired.

Concept: A simple pattern match against each line to link their respective contexts. Eg, if you log each request with an id `[timestamp] [request-id] some module: some message`, then theoretically you could parse a log to show visual relation between all request ids.

Furthermore, you could filter out request ids with generic tools like grep/etc.

There must be logging viewer tools that work generically like this though, so perhaps i'd be wasting my time :)

> P.S. 555.555.555.555 isn't really a great example IP :)

I chose it because it made me think of the old 90s 555.555.5555 movie phones, haha.

I totally forgot the docker mac integration. How is it treating you? How is the performance?

I stopped using mac a while ago to avoid performance overhead. Now i'm curious how the new Docker Mac would treat me

For anyone familiar with the landscape:

Are webworkers likely to improve dramatically as time goes on? For example, the cost of using web workers appears[1] to be far greater than just spinning up another thread in, say, Go[2]. I assume this is mainly due to how the browser is sandboxing JS. So, is there room for improvement here? Or have most things js related been so drastically optimized that we are without much hope here?

[1]: Purely speculative on my part. [2]: Yes i know Go has green threads, it's purely an example. I was going to say Rust, but that seems like an unfair comparison.

It's weird, i don't think i had a ton of praise growing up (in the 90s), but regardless i ended up a basket case when it comes to praise. I loathe it.

At some early point in my life i saw how meaningless praise was. Parents (mine and others) praised without warrant.. and it was obvious to me. Worse yet, i couldn't figure out where the line was - what was legitimate praise? I became distrusting of all praise, and rarely felt pride from anyone but myself. Which, honestly sucks.

Whether it's parents praising their children, or gifts at Christmas that people often don't want but smile and act like they do.. everyone is just lying to each other so constantly that everything of value feels so fake.

It's honestly quite upsetting to me. I wonder if it's like this everywhere? Is it mostly an American situation?

Fwiw, I appreciate your insight on this matter. I know we disagree on some points, but it was fruitful for me to see your perspective. Anyway:

> How do you propose tweaking it without either publishing a directory of all the kiddy porn on IPFS or creating a bottleneck which incidentally is ideal for tracking and surveillance?

Well this is off the cuff, because i wasn't aware of BitSwap's desire to seed in the event of no swap data.. but with that said, i was mainly just referring to alternate methods to help inhibit leeching.

Eg, allow leeching but only for the first (tiny) %x. How willing a host is to allow leeching should be up to them regardless. If i'm hosting a file i want to distribute for an open source network, it's in my interest to host it, and i'd rather not inhibit others from downloading what i'm providing them based on some BitSwap algorithm trying to make things "fair".

P2P is a tough challenge though, which is what that whole sketchy BitSwap section stems from. I imagine a beer and an hour and you could come up with a dozen alternate methods to discourage leeching. Whether or not they're as effective as requiring "work", is impossible for me to say.. but i think we both agree that the work outlined in that PDF is a bit.. sketchy.

> How? Is there some kind of sniff test I don't know about?

Well, i don't know about you - but i don't download random files on the internet. I download from trusted sources only. IPFS would be no different. A trusted web TLD or a trusted IPNS namespace would be good enough for me to feel it is trusted, in both accounts. Outside of trusted domains on the web, i don't download it. Eg, would you download 555.555.555.555/foo.pdf? I certainly wouldn't.

I think with IPFS it will become a bit defacto to trust IPNS rather than IPFS directly. Not only are hashes potentially dangerous, but they're simply a terrible UX. A parallel would be like downloading `555.555.555.555/foo.pdf` - you have no idea if that's kiddy porn or not, it's effectively a random hash. Don't download it.

A domain (like that IPNS is aiming to provide, i believe) would be more akin to `https://trusted-site.com/foo.pdf`. Long term, i don't think anyone should be using hashes directly. But that's just my 2c, we'll see how it plays out.

> What's to say BitSwap won't proactively decide to download and start seeding some rare pieces of kiddy porn?

Nice catch, that is interesting. Granted, i feel like this could be tweaked as it is simply a mechanic to attempt to reduce leeching on the network.

> You need to know if the hash contains kiddy porn before you download it, but to know if it contains kiddy porn you have to download it. Classic Catch-22.

How do you know if that link to a pdf from a friend contains kiddy porn? You need to download it to check the md5 / contents.

I'm really lost on how this is any different than HTTP/BitTorrent/etc. Any link on the web can be kiddy. Any bittorrent link can be kiddy. Any IPFS link can be kiddy. They're all equally dangerous on that front as i see it.

The only argument i feel like can be made on this front, is that the hash can make for a hard to visually decipher file. Ie, `foo.com/bar.pdf` is inherently more "trust worthy" than `/ipfs/d3b07384d113edec49eaa6238ad5ff00`. With that said though, that's a better reason to not use `/ipfs/d3b07384d113edec49eaa6238ad5ff00` than it is to use `/ipns/foo.com/bar.pdf` (fake domain/example for easy discussion).

Again, stay away from random hashes just like you stay away from sketchy torrents and random http files.

> IPFS will become toxic real quick, if it becomes know that IPFS can make you an unintentional distributor of kiddy porn and pirated content.

Yea, this is where you're mistaken. It cannot make you distribute anything! You only distribute what you download. Don't download kiddy porn, and you won't distribute kiddy porn.

> All it takes for you to commit a crime and/or copyright infringement, not only as a consumer but also a as a distributor, is to be tricked into retrieving one hash.

That is fair - but the same could be said for every p2p system on the planet. Has anyone solved this problem? How does BitTorrent protect me from unknowingly downloading kiddy porn?

> The world is a messy place and IPFS does nothing to protect its users.

I'm a bit confused, why is it the job of IPFS to "protect its users"? IPFS has no liability here, it's simply trying to make IPFS a law-abiding software as a whole. So it is not outlawed.

IPFS doesn't have any reason to "protect" me from things i download anymore than HTTP or TPC does. It's a technology for localizing data. What makes you feel IPFS has to protect its users?

It sounds like you think IPFS somehow spreads files onto your system without your consent. You only download what you choose to, just like with HTTP/TPC/UPD and the whole tech stack.

IPFS changes nothing for your personal security. It's not intended to. It's a technology to lower bandwidth usage from the production of mass data in the current age. And in regards to it being ironic for having a central authority, - sure - but the problem is bandwidth that IPFS is aiming to solve is, not law and/or DMCAs.

IPFS must have some seriously bad marketing (i blame the whole "good for humanity angle"), because i feel like you and a lot of people have the entirely wrong idea about IPFS. It's a technology, nothing more.. especially in it's current form. The only thing it might "save the world" from is bandwidth, lol.

This looks interesting, but how does it deal with tasks that don't have an expected finish time?

Eg, what i like about Pomodoro is that i am not planning anything more. I simply chug away at my (hopefully micro optimized) task list, and take breaks when the Pomodoro says so.

This looks nifty, but i have no clue how long most of my tasks are going to take. Limiting them to 25m or w/e seems like it would induce more stress and uncertainty.

I assume i have the product slightly wrong. Thoughts?

That is unfortunate, because i have yet to see how IPFS is even remotely that. Especially since it wants to comply with DMCAs and etc.

The technology and the marketing seem at odds, to me.

They are addressing it, but it's a future feature. Last i saw on Github issues (it likely has evolved since then), they plan to have a central authority which allows for DMCAs/reports/etc of illegal content. The network then propagates an ignore list of sorts (or possibly watches a central list).

Any nodes on the network which abide by this will simply not download and/or unpin the data.

It doesn't prevent you from downloading some kiddy porn that a stranger sent you.. but neither does the internet. This, is purely to allow law to take place, and hopefully allow lawmakers to work with IPFS, and not block the whole damn thing.

Well, that is fair. I'm mainly talking about "normal" adoption though.

Eg, for a long time BitTorrent was being branded as a pirate haven. The only major players i saw adopt BitTorrent were open source projects needing to distribute large ISOs. IPFS is something that they're trying to get into standards, into browsers, into operating systems, etc. If it's known for distributing kiddy porn on the dark net it will be much more difficult.

I know piracy spreads like wildfire, but it's not really the target audience for what IPFS is trying to do. In short, they want YouTube, not PirateBay. Or so i gather, at least.

Do you disagree?

> The implementation has led down a centralised path.

Sure, but choosing another implementation is.. a technical choice, is it not? Are you saying that if i choose to implement a distributed method it's not technical? What is my choice then, political?

Because i have no political motives.. purely technical. I want less data choking the pipes. Which is all IPFS is ultimately doing. Seems pretty technical (instead of social/political, atleast) to me.

Am i missing what you were conveying?

> I worry that this is another example of throwing technology at a social and political problem.

I'm so lost at this assertion. How is this a social / political problem?

IPFS is not permanent hosting. It is not an attempt to take power away from others and distribute it to the masses. It is purely a technical problem, which i think is objectively true.

I have a feeling that you believe IPFS is partially designed to subvert governments/etc. And to an extent, that may be possible, but it is being built with DMCA's in mind. IPFS wants to allow governments / copyright holders to take content down from the network. It is not trying to become a pirate haven. Why? Well, mainly because piracy inhibits adoption. There may not be a way to DMCA currently (i haven't checked in months), but there are Github issue(s) on it. The creators don't want to see IPFS blocked in countries because it can permanently host illegal content. Which makes a ton of sense.

The problem IPFS is trying to solve, as i see it, is purely technical. As advertised in pretty much every pitch i've seen for this technology, we are simply scaling too fast in storage and not fast enough in bandwidth. It appears impossible to handle the infrastructure load of files we are creating. IPFS solves this by automatically pulling content as locally as possible, reducing network overhead. Furthermore, it means that a DDOS/viral/etc of a central resource will not kill it. It's safely and mostly permanently (barring DMCA/etc requests) available.

So with that said, what political and social problem do you see IPFS trying to solve? I don't see any.

Which method do you find easiest (read: least developer time) for using large rust codebases from Python?

This is awesome. I fear how accurate it might be, though. Even if the technology is accurate (i believe it is), this, like most things with this presidential campaign, seems prone to fudging.

I mean, i have yet to find a registrar that has all the TLDs i want. However, most of the TLDs i want i already find too expensive.

If this type of service minimizes "their cut" to the bare minimum, and made it very transparent who it was coming from so i could price check, i would likely use this service because they're bound to have more TLDs (due to aggregation) than typical registrars.

Unfortunately, currently i feel like i'd just be paying a significant premium for something i already find too expensive. And if this isn't true, i see no information to indicate otherwise (at a quick glance, at least).

> Because I'm free to do so, because work is consented, not forced.

I mean, you're not really addressing the argument with that part. I'm not forcing you to do so, but do you really think you are entitled to live off welfare of others? Because that is the implication of that statement.

If you want to not work, not pay taxes, and live in the woods, by all means. But if you expect society to support you, with no contribution, then you're just abusing the system. Sure, you may "be free to do so", but that doesn't make it correct. And if everyone abused the system like that, it wouldn't work.

> I know I'm ranting but to me, society looks like a giant treading mill. Happiness and the slow, intelligent life have been forgotten in favor of a society of endless work and jobs. Contributing to the labor force has become a religion. The simple idea of idleness and staying at home to paint or draw seems to drive people crazy. It should not.

I mean, to a degree i can understand what you mean. We are seeking happiness in the treadmill and that rarely seems to bring it. We hope that after the treadmill there will be happiness, but few are sure of that.

My problem though, with what i took from your words, was that it sounds like you believe work is becoming less and less required. I don't feel that's true, unfortunately.

I think that will become true, in time, but we don't have the technology to automate the work we need to. Sure, we have various factory line jobs replaces with robotics, and we're working on lots of general replacement (Taxis, for example), but most of the labor force, even "just" manual labor, requires specific intensive understanding that we are not even close to replicating with robotics. Hell, we're still struggling to walk easily and effectively. Sure, walking robots are becoming more natural and skilled, but it's definitely still a WIP.

My robotics leap may have seemed odd, but that's what i believe is required before your comment holds true. Work will always be required - there is no doubt about that. Someone, some thing, will be doing work. And humanity will only be able to ignore work once we've enslaved something else to do it for us.

So back to topic, i think part of the stress you feel from society is a bit of a "i have to do it, so you have to do it" thing. Why should you get to do what you like, when others so clearly cant? You could argue that we're all expecting too much, we don't need the gadgets/etc, and that living very frugal can be a means to happiness, but living frugal doesn't absolve yourself from work.

The frugal lives of the world still work. Some may not work as hard, some may have much more free time, but there's still work to be done. You still have to learn the trades to repair your stuff, or pay someone else to do it for you. To grow your food, or to pay someone else to. And etc.

I'm not trying to come off aggressive, so i hope it doesn't seem that way. Perhaps i'm missing your point, but the statement of:

> ... and it's fine, because work is less and less necessary.

Seems very very foreign to me.

Wow, thank you! Very interesting! Quite odd that none of my follows mentioned this going live, must be an issue of too many github issues.

Time to dig into this a bit!

edit: For anyone else perplexed and surprised by me, seems `floodsub` is their moniker for the new tech, and it was (in part) merged in here: https://github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/pull/3202

This is really, really cool! Also, if this implementation is robust and performant, this is huge for IPFS.

I'm assuming exactly what i said. A job at walmart means another person on government aid, which is obviously (mostly) true.

By (loose) definition, non-living wage employment results in needing assistance - ie government assistance. Whether you agree with it or not is another story.

I'm not saying Walmart shouldn't exist because employees are on government assistance. I'm saying that Walmart is profiting off of this assistance.

Are you familiar with IPFS pubsub? Would you be able to link some information about the implementation/usage?

I'm quite surprised to hear what you said. I've been following multiple Github Issues on IPFS pubsub, and none of them (that i followed) announced success/etc. I thought it was still in the planning phase.

It's sad that we even have jobs so below to poverty line, reliant on social aid programs to live. Someone working 40 hours a week should not be on government aid. Unfortunately for Walmart's terrible pay (and the terrible minimum wage in general), it's quite common.

My fiancee has been steadily employed by a different retail chain and was on Medicaid/etc because of the useless minimum wage pay.

Now we're double income (along with a moderate engineer pay), so she no longer needs that, thankfully.

I mean, they're not doing it for the American economy. They're experimenting to see how it affects their short and long term profits.

Why do i believe they're not helping the American economy? Because firstly, that is not what they legally holden to (ie, the stock holders). Secondly, and most importantly, Walmart is costing the country a lot by not paying their workers a living wage. So a job at walmart means another person on government social aid program(s).

I'm curious how much of it has to do with perception too. I avoid Walmart. I don't feel they treat their employees well, pay them well, or do anything well, fwiw. I much rather shop where i have the perception that the employees are happier.

So, just because Walmart is paying them better, does not inherently mean they are happier OR that i know they are being treated better. I had no clue, and thusly have not changed my shopping habits at all.