If you think that, you don't understand the nature of what is being done with HTML nowadays. It's not about declarative markup, it's about efficient updating of a UI whose shape is completely decoupled from the shape of the state it is representing.
195 karma · joined September 27, 2017
You see it in both the obsession to label anything and anyone a nazi or nazi-adjacent, as well as to turn a blind eye to the real abusive power wielded in the name of anti-fascism.
The ends do not justify the means, and you don't get to paint your team's actions as merely "consequences" like it's some sort of divine and just punishment. You can't cast yourself as a powerless observer when you're actively applying leverage in collusion with institutions.
Consistent rules, actual accountability and real responsibility need to apply to everyone if this is to get better.
End user expectations are for complex layouts, flexible typography, rich media embedding, animated interactions, and so on. I've yet to see a QT app come close to what e.g. Slack has managed to shoehorn in.
It'd be great if we could get desktop level robustness out of it too, instead of being limited to scrolling three or four screens up before it has to start paging out content.
Web UI is bad in many ways, but many desktop adherents seem willfully oblivious about why there is such a desire for this. The only native OS that has evolved to compete is MacOS, with its multi touch driven interactions genuinely making most web stuff feel like the janky lowest common denominator that it is.
It is also pretty ridiculous to posit no link between the different moderation mechanisms. Being downvoted unjustly and reflexively is going to annoy commenters and make them comment back in defense. It sends a social signal that some view is unacceptable, which makes them look like troublemakers a priori.
It's also inaccurate to call this an overt feature, because there is no disclosure on affected threads. While I'm sympathetic to not wanting to stoke fires, it's fair to think the system is being gamed when I never see this happen to threads that skew in the opposite direction about a story that promotes the orthodox view. It will also create exactly the kind of unresolved discussions that guarantee a repeat until the end of time, as a self fulfilling prophecy.
The vigorous discussion should be a sign that people do want to discuss it, and I'm not convinced the flaggers and downvoters are representative of what the community at large believes. In the case of the Damore memo, informal anonymous surveys inside Google showed a very mixed landscape, in a company that skews very orthodox already. For a community that draws from a much wider geography, it is fair to assume even more disagreement. There is ample evidence of ends-justifies-means behavior from the people who want to impose their moral order on the tech scene, and pretending it isn't happening, under the guise of promoting reasonable debate, is incredibly naive.
If anything, these threads should be explicitly allowed to stand, leaving it up to individuals to decide whether to wade in, perhaps with a "keep it civil" preamble.
Either the admins are turning a blind eye, or they're not paying attention. At this point my money is on the former.
The supreme irony of course is that lately the most recurring instances are about the memo that was titled "Google's ideological echo chamber". It's an open secret which cliques have a septic response to disagreement, and who simply wants to be heard but is treated as malicious.
Empathy for me, not for thee, and feelings of safety are more important than actual safety. The content of people's skin is more important than their character.
Your hypothesis is in fact the radical one: that programming is somehow such an unseen before ability, that evolution until now has not evolved any machinery to repurpose for its realization. Given everything we know about the very obvious cognitive limits we do have, and where they come from, that seems implausible.
The common reasoning by the way does dismiss reports from men and women alike that all this diversity mongering has poisoned the workplace atmosphere and mostly serves to enrich and flatter the egos of people who wouldn't show up unless they got special treatment for their own demographic, with special segregated events, hiring pipelines and accolades. The old "women in X" spiel. These things are most definitely constructed, and not for the reason they advertise. The standards of evidence demanded to abolish them are sky high compared to the spurious reasoning that spawned them.
The one thing I want is an outlet that knows to shut up if they don't have anything interesting to say. Having a class of people attempt to do this as a daily job seems pointless in this day and age.
Given that a "bro" was denigrated, persecuted and fired for trying to bring light to some of the causes, there is plenty of reason to think the imbalance being perpetuated is not the one you're thinking of.
You cannot create safety by concentrating power and authority, you create it by limiting the effects of those two.
Replace "white men" with "black woman" and they'd have a field day clutching pearls and fanning themselves silly.
Damore may be an insensitive autist... Or maybe he's one of the few sensitive to see through all the posturing.
Without some form of proportional representation, new ideas can be voiced but they can't get independent traction.
It also opens the door to creating drama because of the tone of the criticism, thus missing the original point (or deliberately deflecting from it). If you've worked under people for whom this is second nature, you know how destructive and poisonous this can be. "Please give me feedback" is code for "Flatter me", and not doing so results in "How dare you" indignation.
I don't think it's a coincidence that tech is one of the fields where this posturing found loud and well argued push back early, and no coincidence that high school mean girl tactics were the response.
If a memo is sufficient to cause one to feel unsafe, then being fired and slandered in media ought to be much worse. That's the empathy gap in action. People assume the problems that are talked about the most are the most important, not realizing those that are passed over can never be addressed in the first place.
Most ironically, lefties lamented the ignorance of right wing voters in accepting stories that confirmed their bias and preconceptions, while they themselves eagerly accepted the fake news narrative.
Fake news was not an important concept. Media manipulation however was, and the two got conflated for very obvious reasons.
But so does Mozilla. They're a big enterprise when it suits them, and a scrappy upstart otherwise.
The Mozilla brand is looking mighty shabby. Privacy is the one thing they've consistently pushed, and yet I can't recall any serious innovation or stance they've taken on recent years that actually puts their money where their mouth is.
Private browsing was invented by Chrome. Brave shields you from script bloat. Safari's adding machine learning to that end.
Which leaves Mozilla... pushing adware onto its users. Qué?
It's disingenuous to say that users should be able to intuit how it's all organized and how they can contribute, when something like this clearly only happens because of privileged first party involvement with real revenue attached.
Unless you're suggesting that anyone who wishes to spam a campaign to Firefox users can just get that done by opening up an issue and submitting a patch...?
Cancelling events and boycotting sponsors because their speaker line up isn't sufficiently in line with imaginary industry demographics. Or even because a blind selection process, the thing people say they want, ends up selecting a wrongthinker.
Bullying comet-chasing scientists into tearful apologies over their choice of shirt. Or a self deprecating joke. That's just in STEM, you see the same in comedy, in politics, etc.
In each instance, a pitchfork wielding mob was summoned with social media outrage by bad faith actors. And get this, they are the ones who also loudly complain about trolls.
The rule to make sense of it is quite easy: when they do it to you, it's just consequences for speech. When it happens to them, it's targeted harassment that makes people feel unsafe and someone needs to step in and ban it.
I dunno if you've played it recently btw, but it hasn't aged that well either.
Ambition and wild ideas are fine, but you shouldn't make promises you can't deliver on.
Fool me once...
I've heard people say "the technology didn't exist back then!", which is true. But the technology doesn't exist today either. Games have gotten a lot better at drawing convincing pictures, but in terms of simulating worlds and generating content, we've mostly stood still.
No Man's Sky already showed that, with its demo scene derived trickery. You can't entertain people with random seeds for very long. You need intent, storytelling and reactive, interacting systems.
- File formats and open protocols are dead, everything is stored in someone else's database. How do we regain the ability to switch providers and interoperate?
- The web has petrified as a medium. Only the few big giants can now evolve it, and all but one does so in direct competition with their own walled garden. Does anyone care?
- Mobile devices: How do I make them useful? Are there apps that aren't toys for kids? Tricorders, not mini TVs plz.
- Anyone wanna let me in to their secret clubhouse? I don't bite, I'm just a sperg who values truth as a terminal value over high school antics and who lacks the energy to chit chat about trivia to meet people.
https://status451.com/2017/11/05/i-see-trad-people/
When people think of each other as blank slates and make progressivism the only acceptable viewpoint, maybe those inclined towards social conservatism just come out doing this "progressive in name only" thing, LARPing the themes of the last century in lieu of a consistent set of values.
We sandboxed away innovation, so now all we have is web apps that process text, video and audio all in the same way.
The internet of old was also preselected, towards the people most likely to have early access. It did not transcend borders, it was a new country. That country has vanished, and we should mourn it, and figure out how to bring it back. But that doesn't change the fact that real life is highly compartmentalized, and people want and need it to be in order to function. As real life bled into the virtual, this was inevitable.
One of the most instructional things is to move to a completely different place and culture. People's experience of the last couple years will be entirely different, because everything that's been reported has been implicitly filtered by the question of "how does this affect our tribe/region/nation". Famous personalities won't be known, landmark events will be vague footnotes, and instead there's a whole parallel universe of facts and people. Everything you thought you knew is wrong.
The internet is a poor fit for humanity. Good luck in getting away from that fact without feeling alienated from everyone around you. They don't like Cassandras and they don't like reality.
amirite
The only thing that works from the celeb side is to power through and intently turn the conversation back onto the fan. But that requires genuine interest that you may not have the energy for, and it may not be what _they_ are there for either. There is a reason comic con actors charge for autographs: it's a very light weight form of prostitution.
Fans are genuinely annoying. They break every social rule, and come with a one way sense of familiarity only possible through modern technology, which our primate brain is poorly equipped for.
People are worried about the one ideology we are most inoculated against, and for which tens of thousands can be whipped into a frenzy to protest against, _even if no actual nazi event is taking place_. This is not a real issue. Neither is being upset that you're letting your kids be babysat by bots who make Sims machinima. If the author feels there's a flood of dangerous content out there, why is the article full of milquetoast embeds?
If you render it to a transparent layer and force an RGBA blend, it gets blended in sRGB color space rather than linear RGB, but this is a flaw that can't be easily changed because of legacy reasons. Any design that uses transparency of any kind, text or graphics, would change appearance. I agree that we should have a body { color-space: linear; } though, but good luck in explaining why to coders and users alike.
The fattening that you are complaining about is something else entirely: it mimics the way physical ink bleeds on paper. The weights were under designed to compensate for this, and they replicated this effect virtually.
Given how e.g. reddit's news and political subs turned into a Hillary fort right as she was pumping millions into her own social media ops, I have zero sympathy for their crocodile tears. They don't hate the Russians for doing this, they hate them because their own attempts at it failed and backfired, and they need a scapegoat.
It took competitors years to catch up, everyone's forgotten how much of a joke Android was until v4, and how Black Berry only caught up just as they were about to die. Things like low latency audio, large image support, GL, crypto, battery life, ...