khiqxj

wow that thomasnet is a useful website, ive been trying to find what kind of color filters exist and what characteristics they can have and it gets me some nice spectral output graphs

https://abrisatechnologies.com/optical-coatings/color-correc...

i feel like this type of search engine would provide more variety than google which is more of a "the one answer". need more meta articles like this

> You could probably answer all of these trivially with a quick query on your favorite search engine. But it hasn’t always been that way. In the old days...

you can get an Amazon link with some counterfeit or fly by night product and a bunch of knucklehead reviewers saying stuff like "the black cable was indeed black!" and "it took long to ship!", or you can go to the local store that sells all the electronics stuff you need in some subcategory, which you would likely already know. also depending on what you want to look up, google will give you an invalid state approved answer (coming soon)

>If you wanted to find out about a particular IC in the old days, the best thing to do was to find the manufacturer’s data book. If you were in a school or a company, there might be what you wanted in the library.

...and today you get some shithead's 3rd party website with a bunch of pdfs from god knows where encoded into web page slide shows with google captchas

ruby is a poor abstraction AND inefficient. text based manipulations and crap like IFS are terrible abstractions. languages like standard ML were made SPECIFICALLY for abstracting. they literally were meticulously designed to provide proper abstractions (think, for example how the elements of a union type are abstract objects, and can be built up to model coherent ideas, while in ruby any variable probably requires a lookup at runtime in ascii^Wunicode^wunicode-minus-whatever-feature-was-found-to-be-harmful-in-this-context)

what im saying is that the academic idea of abstraction is far better and less leaky than ruby (dynamic name resolution and such "scripting language" crap) or java (data structures are intended to be used once or twice per program (exaggerating) instead of fluently like you would make trees in a functional language); its just obscured but if everyone understood the motivation it would have replaced stuff like ruby in all use cases.

i see ruby and java as a little shop where the owner will let you instantiate one or two objects according to some terms, and then let you maybe make your own class, but it will essentially just be a wrapper around a few of the shop's objects. whereas in ML you can model anything from the ground up, even numbers, and it will still be nicely implemented and the abstractions will be almost perfect.

no duh. now lets get back to the real world where all the "abstractions" are poor abstractions AND inefficient.

Imagine living in a village in the far past. Your neighbors with whom you will live with for 50 years form close relationships with you. They constantly judge you. They believe in nonsense superstitions, and further judge you by that. If you ever do or convey one thing that goes against their beliefs, they will kill or exile you. You do not sound like any more of a reasonable person. Contrary to popular belief, we do not live in an enlightened time. People still have the same mundane superstitions and morals and actively seek to punish people for violating them. I do not want a village future with you. CCTV is a means of enforcing the will of the people, and only the most opinionated people. It's not worth it for whatever small benefit like a few crimes being solved or punished.

And 99% of them go to the same cloud crap where a single entity can gain control of them all at once (I don't know if this is the current state, but you get the point, it's the inevitable state, be it one with 99% or maybe 5 groups with equal share. In the past all that was needed to take control of a security camera product was ../).

aaand episode #352381 of "woah all these people who i thought were sophisticated are actually just a bunch of lazy / ignorant sysadmins". wouldnt want one obscure CA you never heard of to get hacked, that would compromise every other website (or maybe not with this X.509 name constraints gimmick people are talking about in this thread)

you still on about copyright? what about the fact that it will just add vulns and bugs to your code? or is the industry so bad at this point that a gimmicky AI tool can do better

I did this 10 years ago by installing Tor on the phone and using a hidden service. It didn't need to be hidden, but it's much more convenient to set up than this while offering superior security with no effort. Actually I2P or something like that is a better way of doing it, just I only had Tor on the phone at the time and I2P is kind of script kiddie tier.

I mean that there would be a big 4 such converters if people actually invested time into these "front ends" to CLIs.

in a JPEG implementation, there is 10 lines of code that need to be in C, assembly, etc, the rest can be any language.

> 1999

> CPUs are now 1GHz

> C is obsoleted outside small sections of code such as image processing

> 23 years later

> "What if we just stopped using C?"

im talking about making an (FOSS) alternative front end, to an ostensibly free service, that fixes the bugs for them. what the fuck are you on about?

All of those are legal except for child porn. Not even your insane nanny state agrees with you.

Whatever you're arguing becomes moot when you realize that Reddit had millions of users at whatever point it "had child porn". Murphy's law.

Moderation on internet services is just to remove spam. People who think it's for something else are brain dead. Yes, 99% of internet services do think moderation is for whatever little idea they have, but 99% of internet services are poor quality services in the first place. We have never left the dot com bubble.

There are at least 3 ways this can create bugs:

  - It has to parse output of commands which may or may not be intended to be parsed and may or may not have a predictable format. The only way to overcome this is if this program becomes one of the Big Four "UN*X command output -> data" converters

  - It casts things to "float/int"

  - Depending on who made this library, the output itself may not be strict / predictable. Perhaps it will output JSON with two different key names in two different scenarios.

And don't forget that any of these issues will still come up even if they are accommodated for, due to versions of programs changing without the author of this tool knowing.

But yeah basic things having intrinsic shortcomings is a given, when you're using UN*X.

From the nested article:

> Had JSON been around when I was born in the 1970’s Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie may very well have embraced it as a recommended output format to help programs “do one thing well” in a pipeline.

They had S-expressions and plenty more options. They also could have just made a format as you can tell with thousands of ad-hoc trendy new formats like YAML and TOML being spewed out every recent year now that programmers discovered data structures.