mkishi

Minor peripheral point? The whole original thread was arguing about a point that wasn't made in the first tweet. They never claimed nor implied non-mass-produced goods from China were an issue. Replies created that point out of nowhere and you are using the fabricated discussion to paint them as somehow problematic.

Factory-created mass-produced handmade artisan goods? You're working really hard to misinterpret their tweet.

Do you expect people to think of skilled artisans working on handmade goods when they hear mass production? Because upon reading Wikipedia [1] or a dictionary [2], I'd think of factories, assembly lines, machinery and automation.

Etsy is a site that advertises carefully crafted handmade goods from independent creators, that are often custom and unique. They were looking for non-mass-produced handmade goods and found mass-produced goods from China instead. That's a mundane factual observation that couldn't be made clearer.

You're not really making your case here. Reading your flagged comments is not as flattering as you seem to believe.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_production [2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mass-pro...

I don't know where to dm you, so I'll do this here:

I really shouldn't have posted this submission.

Ghost is a relatively big platform that I've always kept in consideration for projects. I was so shocked by the situation and the discovery that something similar happened in the past that I went "people need to know this!" disregarding how out of place it'd be to blast the thread here. Thankfully it was flagged quickly, but it shouldn't have been up to begin with.

I'm sorry.

Donations probably dwarf subscription earnings, I'm not sure it's that black and white.

Remove all third-party apps from the ecosystem. How long do iDevices survive in this scenario? Even now that it's already such a behemoth of a platform?

Now do the opposite—make Apple as a whole disappear. What would app developers do?

I'm not saying Apple doesn't provide value, but let's not pretend they don't need the third-party developers they are so keen on squeezing no matter what. More than they need Apple, at least.

Have you thought about a separate extension that just has a toolbar button that is mostly in a dull inactive state with a grayscale badge, but when there's enough discussion on a page, it both lights up and has an obnoxiously colorful number?

Even though I never mess with it, I find I'm generally aware when there's a badge on my adblocker. I believe that'd be enough to remind people to click it. The heuristics should be strict enough not to light up all the time, or maybe even support user-defined filters for advanced users.

After a while it's possible they'll subconsciously think about Ampie — and the dull badge will still convey "yeah, there's some discussion, check it out."

ps. I say separate extension because I'd be wary of giving it access to all sites and data, which I guess would be required if that was only a setting?

It's a huge number but amounts to 0.4% (0.004). I have no idea how that compares to regular 24M international wire transfers, though.

Something weird is going on. They used to also sell licenses on the website, but it disappeared. Now they have a sold out $5 tier on Patreon, unless you visit the site's direct link? It's just odd.

e: Status update from project lead as of 2021-09-01: https://github.com/onivim/oni2/issues/3811#issuecomment-9103....

This was the passage that turned me to Google to check if it was reciting something from memory.

The thing about this app is that they don't advertise donations anywhere, and people aren't donating for the app, they are donating for the content — and that's available everywhere. You know, the same criteria that Apple uses to distinguish Kindle and Dropbox from non-content-reader apps.

The service Google provides is the Play Store, and it'd be extremely reasonable for everyone to pay for it. We aren't entitled to that for free. On the other hand, a cut of all transactions? How about a flat baseline fee for platform development plus usage-based fees for everything else, from bandwidth to support?

But then they wouldn't be able to double dip on users and app developers... Plus, they so kindly give you so much exposure on a platform built themselves! You wouldn't expect to rent a place in Times Square and not pay for it with a percentage of your income, right?

I've been meaning to experiment with GAN art for a while now, but never managed to actually study or run any notebooks. I saw NightCafe Creator mentioned in another thread earlier today, and it made it too easy not to try a few prompts. Very neat first experience!

https://creator.nightcafe.studio/creation/EqWtT6LUB3WwVd3T56...

https://creator.nightcafe.studio/creation/iH0oqPjpo4oEHvxwlB...

Does it support the pipes and weights I saw mentioned in a few notebooks, eg. "motorbike:75 | bicycle:25 | car:0"?

I absolutely love Zig, but based on what they praise Crystal for, I don't think they'd enjoy it. Polar opposite syntaxes, do-it-yourself type system, batteries-not-included standard library, and manual memory management? Probably not what they're looking for.

That's cute too and I'm now convicted it should do the opposite when "dark mode" is on.

That's indeed nice for math expressions.

I'm a bit sad there seems to be no interest in adding interpolation syntax to Zig. While anonymous tuples work well for shorter expressions, they can get confusing for larger textual templates or DSLs, imo.

I've been experimenting with Zig for WASM, for example, and the readability of HTML templates suffers. I'd love to be able to pass arguments inline, and while we can do that with anonymous tuples, the added noise makes it annoying to use in practice. I believe Javascript's template literals, out of all things, would be a fitting inspiration for a little syntactic sugar on top of anonymous tuples:

  var tuple_params = html.create("{} ... {} ... {}", .{a, b+c, observable});
  
  var tuple_inline = html.create(.{"", a, " ... ", b+c, " ... ", observable, ""});
  
  // equivalent to tuple_inline
  var tuple_sugar = html.create(`{a} ... {b+c} ... {observable}`);

Because you know everything that made the headlines up to 2017?

There might or might not be discussion potential on any submission, so I understand arguing about their value, but that "news if you're a beginner" was very condescending. Why not be happy about today's lucky 10,000?

I've been wondering something, though: wouldn't it be possible to implement regular EC-style components on top of an ECS system?

You can't implement ECS on top of EC, but if it's possible the other way around, Godot's argument that most people won't need it would seem a bit weak — just let them use fat components on top of an ECS core, and if/when they need the performance there's still room to push it without side-stepping the whole engine.

That link says O3DE uses EC, not ECS. These are terribly named and often cause confusion, but they are different.

In "Entity Component" systems (think Unity), entities own components that give them data and behavior.

In "Entity Component System" systems (think Unity DOTS), components are just data, and behavior is driven by systems that live outside entities.

They are similar in some aspects and both are radically different than a deep OOP hierarchy, but ECS is quite more hardcore on decoupling. It's been a few years and it's still not unanimous whether adopting Unity DOTS over regular Unity is easy or even worth it, for instance.

Still, Godot isn't very OOP either, working mostly with composition of behaviors.

Not completely, but maybe enough to lower the insane fees?

For instance, why not charge for the services used and a low payment processing fee? If developers bring associated costs, they should pay for it. It just seems 30% is overshooting quite a bit. They want to treat developers like regular customers with regular margins, when they are more like partners bringing them nearly free revenue.

I guess I'm too ignorant to understand how building, maintaining and securing the App Store is 10x more expensive than doing the same for something like Mastercard.

It does cost them money, but I can't wrap my mind on why that's not subsidized by the rest of the Apple machine.

Didn't customers pay a premium for Apple hardware because of the unified ecosystem and superior security to begin with? And developers also pay a premium to be on the App Store ($99+30%) because it costs them money to create the infrastructure and ensure safety?

I'm pretty ignorant on the whole situation, but it does sound nice to be Apple. Raking in hundreds of billions while charging premiums on both sides, convincing them it's for their own good. Meanwhile, customers and developers descend into a feedback loop of even heavier dependence on Apple: the more customers there are, the more devs have a financial necessity to publish apps on the platform, the more value the platform has, the more customers they get.

People are quick to point out Apple is the one providing for developers, who should be honored to be able to get on the App Store for a 30% cut. But, really, how many users would Apple have without those apps? They do deserve their cut, but at some point it went from a symbiotic relationship to "oil the Apple machine." The economies of scale simply work in their favor here.

If that's the case, the previous implementation was correct and they'll start issuing certificates with 90 days - 1 second now.

That read very tongue in cheek to me. It'd be akin to creating a microblogging platform in a weekend without any production-ready engineering, yet claiming superiority over Twitter on a commit bumping the post limit to 560 characters.

And then having Twitter threatening to sue.

What is the point being made here? That all the comments in the first six pages are from 7+ years ago?

Could you elaborate on when they wouldn't treat regressions as blockers? I'm not very familiar with LLVM and couldn't gather that from the "How To Release LLVM To The Public" docs [1].

[1] https://llvm.org/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.html

That's an enjoyable article, but geez is it light on details.

The one tangible instance mentioned is the Spice Girls hack — but follow the link to discover they didn't even use pwn, but 0wned!

I tried searching a few pre-00s bbs/usenet archives but could only find a couple of gaming-related instances. [1][2]

It'd be pretty interesting to see some hacking groups usage in the 80-90s. Maybe someone with better access to archives could see some trends?

[1] https://groups.google.com/g/alt.games.everquest/c/GN9tm8Esrw...

[2] https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.computer.ultima.online...

They didn't speak in the absolutes you're reading into.

Mobs do cause harm. Cars do kill.

Except there are enough cases of physical and irreparable harm caused by lies being spread on social media.

Let me be clear: there are multiple actual murders and lynch mobs that were the direct result of someone starting a rumor online and it snowballing from there.

How many of those are acceptable? You're dismissing this with "oh chucks most times they are right as opposed to always wrong" when we aren't arguing they are never right.

While I did not mean that and just failed at English, one can easily find documented instances of actual murders and lynch mobs directly caused by lies being spread on social media, so, yes?

What do you call a mob of people piling on someone and causing them to lose friends, opportunities and a healthy state-of-mind? A belief system?

You're free to believe whatever you want, but if you are wrong and they didn't do it, someone was just publicly executed for the wrong reasons.

You're also free to not care about any of that, but some people want to be cautious not to pile on without evidence.

Are you really arguing it's fine if I accused you of something and convinced everyone of that, without ever providing any evidence? And when you said "no, I didn't do that, here's some evidence," people should shrug it off because why does if matter what side they believe? After all, they are free to judge you based on anything they want, as long as they're not threatening your life or firing you, right?

No one was arguing you can't judge people based on any arbitrary thing you can come up with. It becomes an issue when you use that belief to actively destroy their life, possibly for no reason at all.

> The parent comment (and others in this thread) seem to think that these kind of accusations are always bad.

That's not what I gathered from the parent comment and it's not what "mobs do cause harm" mean, which is why I was confused by your rebuttal.

> I tend to think that accusations are usually well-intentioned and well-founded.

That might be the case, but we still have to deal with the times they aren't.

What's your point? As long as they're right sometimes, it makes the unfortunate casualties worth it? A needed sacrifice for the greater good?