4,485 karma · joined June 1, 2012
Surely some web apps need to work offline. But most web pages do not, and I don't want most sites I visit to store a bunch of data on my machine on the off chance that I'll use them offline.
"Offline first" seems really misguided to me as a rallying cry for all things on the web.
I haven't benchmarked the difference, but I bet HTTP compression removes most of the difference
> but that assumes your client already has cached the megabytes of JavaScript needed for you SPA
A cache that will need to be busted every time you deploy new code. You do deploy often, right?
LOL.
Y'all, I love speed as much as anyone, but your development priorities should be 1) it works and 2) it's fast.
Using HTML links where 1) is never in doubt and all focus can be placed on 2) seems like good engineering to me.
Reinventing browser navigation is like building a rocket. You should be really, really sure that you need to do it before you try.
PostgreSQL has a hard bias toward correctness. If you give it invalid data, it will blow up loudly every time.
PostgreSQL also has a boatload of useful features. Need full-text search? It has it, and it's good enough for lots of stuff: http://rachbelaid.com/postgres-full-text-search-is-good-enou...
Need to search for locations with coordinates < N kilometers from a coastline? PostGIS does it.
Need to store and query JSON? Partition tables by a date range? Index only the rows matching a WHERE condition? Use a CHECK constraint? Prevent race conditions from creating reservation rows with overlapping datetime ranges (exclusion constraints)? Run a query periodically and cache the results as a queryable table (materialized views)? The list goes on and on.
More correct data + fewer reasons to add another tool to the stack - especially when that would mean having to keep data in sync - is pretty compelling to me.
This is a very common frustration I have. Eg, go search Amazon for "bike" and sort by price "low to high". None of the top hits are bicycles; they are all accessories.
ML seems to be about guessing what the user wants based on lots of data analysis. But I think there are lots of cases where letting the user tell you want they want, by providing a hierarchical menu or explicit filters, would get much better results.
One "low tech" thing I wish someone would build: an online grocery store with every product categorized by food restrictions (gluten-free, peanut-free, sugar-free, low-sodium, etc, as well as kosher, halal, vegan, etc). Check the boxes you care about in your profile and you'll only see things that match. This would be AMAZING for folks with food allergies. The implementation would be 99.9% up-front research and data entry; the actual filtering would be as simple as WHERE clauses. But I don't know of a site that does this.
Interesting. Citation?
I personally love this epic ownage: Normal Rockwell painted a Jackson Pollack inside of his own realistic painting. https://triviahappy.com/articles/norman-rockwell-made-fun-of...
Find a 3.5" floppy disk from 1995 with WordPerfect files on it and see how much effort it takes you to get the documents back. Now imagine 100 years have passed.
> From experience, we could deploy to a 70-node cluster in something like under 5 seconds by doing it in parallel. If you want to rotate your infrastructure... your deploy could be taking from 5 minutes to an hour depending on how fast the connection draining can be done.
https://soundcloud.com/elixirtalk/episode-145-feat-fred-hebe...
But it still sounds to me like you're demanding that, after removing illegal videos, a site should either be 100% curated or 0% curated.
https://www.tubefilter.com/2019/05/07/number-hours-video-upl... says:
> The platform’s users upload more than 500 hours of fresh video per minute, YouTube revealed at recent press events.
100% curation is unrealistic in that case. They could crowd source the work, but it's hard to see how they can be legally accountable for what users mark as OK.
But 0% curation would mean that they're forced to host videos they consider repugnant. Imagine starting a video sharing platform, having your business grow, and one day being told "well now you're big enough that you no longer get any say in what your site hosts."
There is a finite amount of land in a town, so a monopoly can exclude people. This is not true of video hosting - there can be as many video hosts as people care to build, and they are all equally usable from anywhere on the internet.
> Since YouTube has a monopoly on video content on the internet
They don't.
Now, if ISPs started censoring particular political viewpoints, that would be different IMO. It's much harder to get a different ISP (at least where I live) than it is to browse to a different web site.
It sounds like you're saying that they either have to host absolutely any video anyone uploads, or else stand behind every video as if they made it themselves.
I don't see how a video platform could exist on those terms.
Well, bees don't invent controlled experiments to test our symbolic reasoning, think through the results, form philosophical questions using arbitrarily complex language structures, and post them on the own worldwide information-sharing networks they invented. So I'd say there's a pretty big gap.
> Compared to generally intelligent AI or extraterrestrials, the difference between our intelligence and a bees might not be much.
Assuming that intelligence can be quantified, and that extremely higher values are physically possible, yes, the orders-of-magnitude difference between bees and humans might theoretically be dwarfed by some other comparison. Just like the size difference between a grain of sand and a mountain is not significant compared with the difference between the mountain and the Milky Way. But it's still a massive (get it?) difference.
To frame this as if GM has paid own its way and made its fortune without help, and now is benevolently helping Tesla, is misleading.
No single decision should be taken as proof that dictatorship is good.
Eg via a documentary: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/american-gospel-b...
A sermon clip with more than a million views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTc_FoELt8s
A rap which drew a lot of attention when published: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl4WevY-GPU
An explainer article: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-you-should-k...
A church journal issue dedicated to the subject: https://www.9marks.org/journal/prosperity-gospel/
An article by the nephew of one of these con artists, explaining why he left the racket: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/october/benny-hinn...
And the list goes on and on. There are many ongoing efforts to combat this kind of false teaching.
Jesus' own teaching and that of his first followers were quite clear on the point that greed is sinful and dangerous, and that love and generosity to the needy, not wealth and success, should characterize Christians.
[Luk 12:15, 33-34 ESV] 15 And he said to them, "Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." ... 33 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
[1Ti 6:9-10 ESV] But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
[Eph 4:28 ESV] 28 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.
[Phl 2:3-4 ESV] 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
[Jas 1:27 ESV] 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
[1Jo 3:16-18 ESV] 16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. 17 But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
Prosperity teaching sells a parody of Christianity. It preys on those whose faith and knowledge of scripture is too shallow to tell the difference.
"Generated columns" and "foreign keys to partitioned tables" are two that caught my eye.
Really?
> In one study, participants who read that an artist was strongly passionate about his job said it was more legitimate for the boss to exploit the artist than those who read the artist wasn’t as passionate. This finding extended to asking for work far beyond the job description, including leaving a day at the park with family and cleaning the office bathroom.
This is not normal and professional behavior.
Besides which, economics is all based on the fact that two parties in a trade can both win because they want different things. Eg, you have a surplus of oranges, I have a surplus of apples. I value my first apple highly (I like apples!) but my ten thousandth apple is nearly worthless to me. I'd happily trade that last apple for a tenth of an orange. And you'd gladly trade your last orange for a tenth of an apple. We trade some of our fruit 1:1 and we both got a deal 10x better than what we'd accept.
Hypothetically, what if it never begins earning more money than it spends each year? At some point wouldn't it be unable to borrow any more (from banks or investors) and be forced to shut down? And if so, we still don't know if it can be profitable, right?
> Chip designers are under so much pressure to deliver ever-faster CPUs that they’ll risk changing the meaning of your program, and possibly break it, in order to make it run faster.
> ...
> applications will increasingly need to be concurrent if they want to fully exploit CPU throughput gains that have now started becoming available and will continue to materialize over the next several years. For example, Intel is talking about someday producing 100-core chips; a single-threaded application can exploit at most 1/100 of such a chip’s potential throughput.
It seems the trend in programming languages is towards better concurrency support. But why don't we yet see 100-core chips? If chip makers had to forego all speculative execution and similar tricks, would that push us toward the many-core future?
If coal prices included the negative externalities costs - in other words, if we charged coal companies for dumping their trash into our collective air instead of subsidizing them by letting them do it for free - it would greatly change the price comparison. Then the market would likely do the rest.