oliveremberton

Vibe coded in 3.5 hrs (content was older, natch), wrote a block-based, WYSIWYG block based CMS from scratch to power it.

In the preprint, it is argued that their device reached “quantum supremacy” and that “a state-of-the-art supercomputer would require approximately 10,000 years to perform the equivalent task.” We argue that an ideal simulation of the same task can be performed on a classical system in 2.5 days and with far greater fidelity.

https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-suprem...

If you use a Mac, just enable VoiceOver: https://www.apple.com/voiceover/info/guide/_1121.html

If you use Windows, I suggest NVDA - it's a free screen reader that's similar to the most-popular-but-expensive one (JAWS): https://www.nvaccess.org/download/

IMHO the best screen readers are on your phone / tablet. This might sound crazy (how can a touchscreen work when you can't see it?) but they're much better designed than their desktop equivalents. Mobile software tends to be simpler, resulting in a better experience:

iOS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDm7GiKra28

Android: https://support.google.com/accessibility/android/answer/6007...

If you work in web tech and take 1-2 hours to learn one of these you'll be able to dazzle others with it for the rest of your life.

TBH we call it "myopia" in the plugin because it's short and what we think most users would understand. Many visual disabilities cause a similar blurring effect, such as cataracts.

https://silktide.com/resources/toolbar

It’s not a substitute for real-world testing, but it should help you appreciate the basics without having to learn a full screen reader.

We’re also working on some accessibility games right now (scores challenges for you to complete in a browser with a simulated disability), which sound a lot like what you’re suggesting.

If the law actually said that, it would be great.

You never want laws to be ambiguously applied and to presume exemption because "it wouldn't happen to me". People will abuse laws: there will be spam scams aplenty selling snake-oil solutions, and ambulance chasers threatening to sue companies because they can. Excess legislation comes at a cost.

I am in favour of better privacy but I fail to see how counting unique visitors on a blog should become a crime. By setting the standard that everyone is violating the law, you encourage everyone to ignore your law.

Or if you prefer something free and lightweight: http://nibbler.silktide.com/

Disclaimer: I work here.

If an obscure artist makes some music you don't like, nobody cares. But if that artist sells a million records, you'll see an online explosion of rage.

It seems we're wired to react when our tastes don't match those of the groups we hang around in.

1. It's a long post 2. Most of my readers are presumably >15 yrs old 3. I honestly think most people up to age 15 have limited control over their lives

I decided to trim it down. Obviously I am not literally saying that a 14-and-11-months year old has no influence over their destiny but a 15 year old does. But superfluous precision is the enemy of effective writing; you end up with a legal document.

crosses fingers

Open to suggestions.

> The entirety of humanity’s knowledge is – of course – free

I was using a degree of hyperbole for the benefit of word economy. It's like when Louis CK remarked "Everything is amazing, no-one is happy". It's obvious he doesn't mean "everything" or "no-one", but a more factually precise "Most of our first-world lives are remarkably great, yet most of us complain disproportionately about them" isn't quite so catchy. I was aiming to write a commentary, not a white paper.

As for your second point, I think we're in agreement. I agree it's likely that in 100 years our current best will look like crap. That's a good thing. It seems that mankind is on a permanent positive trajectory – a realisation that seems to elude most people, sadly – and that by itself is pretty damn amazing.

We have no problem with privacy - quite the opposite, I wish it were being taken seriously - but this law is not remotely about that. If you look at the ICO's latest report they say their audit of sites like Facebook and Google was done purely "visually". They are literally evaluating privacy by looking for banners or legal pages, and not at say the technology or intent behind it.

This event is newsworthy because their site - which is clearly going to be looked at as an exemplar of best practice - is changing from explicit opt-in to implicit. Essentially we're now back to 2009, when sites were expected to include privacy policies that explain if they use cookies.

You mean apart from creating the most popular, free, open source solution for complying with the law?

http://silktide.com/cookieconsent

Or proposing alternative solutions that might actually work:

http://blog.silktide.com/2012/09/fixing-a-broken-cookie-law/

Or creating a free information site to help people comply?

http://silktide.com/cookielaw

Or debating the nuances of how the law might be interpreted for the past 18 months?

http://blog.silktide.com/2011/05/cookie-law-makes-most-uk-we...

http://blog.silktide.com/2011/05/can-we-use-analytics-with-t...

http://blog.silktide.com/2012/02/cookie-law-analytics-are-il...

I'm hardly alone in my opinion of this law. Read any number of technical or legal opinions on the matter:

Wired - http://bit.ly/lJQs4x The Guardian - http://bit.ly/mQKOnv OutLaw - http://bit.ly/6VZgd TechCrunch - http://tcrn.ch/JC15c3

and they're virtually unanimous: this law is a total clusterfuck.

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE POLITICIANS?!

The law is not enforced in the UK at all. Accordingly those who do comply are being penalised unjustly.

The ICO (body responsible for enforcing) have themselves said they probably won't prosecute people for using analytics, because even though that's against the law it's not really all that bad. That's just one example of how vague the law has become.

So we're left in a mess where no-one knows what to do, and those doing the least possible profit. Hence our stance.

Hope that makes sense!

96% of Google's 2011 revenue came from ads: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Advertising

"commercial news still sells paper and has television slots"

Magazine and newspaper sales continue to collapse: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/aug/08/us-pr...

I appreciate you don't like ads; I'm not a big fan either (not that this is what the law is about). But consider the implications of it not becoming viable.

And for the record my company doesn't advertise anything. We just want to be able to use non-invasive features of the Internet like every other country.

"Either put the banner up or get rid of all the junk that you've plugged into your web site."

then we'd still be setting cookies, but we'd be telling users about it after we did so. This is exactly what most sites are doing right now, and it's clearly farcical.

When you start attacking anyone who depends on advertising on the Internet - by which I guess you mean Google, Facebook, Twitter and every commercial news site in existence - then I start to lose you. Those services cost billions, and somebody has to pay for it.

(a) Us to remove said services (b) Our competitors to not (c) Us to suffer unjustly, while they prosper

Then no. The obligation should be on the provider of those services, or the law should be enforced equally. It's not enforced at all.

We clearly explain what those services do in our privacy policy and we include in that an explanation of why we see there being no meaningful privacy implication for users. What's the worst Facebook/Google could do with your information - know you looked at our website? It's hardly porn.

Whilst I appreciate the law exists for a good reason, that doesn't mean the law is good. In it's current form it simply doesn't help user privacy or website owners. I'm hardly alone in saying as much.

We ourselves wrote no "functionality that tracks people" - our site merely uses Google Analytics (anonymous measurement of visitors) and social plugins like Disqus, the Tweet and Like buttons. By the letter of the law those have to be concealed until a user has manually opted in to display them.

In practice everyone instead started showing slide-down banners which accomplish nothing for privacy but piss off users.

Anyone who uses analytics properly knows there's no equivalent log-based solution. Understanding the path users take through a site, how long they view pages for, whether they buy when they came from one advert versus another - these are common practice for good reason and they have ABSOLUTELY ZERO implication for user's privacy, as all this data is anonymous.

The relatively few websites which genuinely might be jeopardising user's privacy - Facebook, Google, Amazon etc - tend to be large, ubiquitous and mostly ad networks. The average 10 page company website is not technically sophisticated enough to subvert a user's privacy nor do they have the visitors to do so.

My fight is with a stupid law, not with privacy.

We had some constructive suggestions on what could be done instead, although these are definitely up for debate. The gist would be using a rel element like so:

<a href='privacy.html' rel='privacypolicy'>Privacy</a>

and then using that as a means of consistently linking to a privacy policy. As a result, policies would have consistent language for users ('look for the "Privacy" link') but could also be detected automatically by browsers or testing tools.

That way you could actually test your site is properly linking to a policy, and users could have browser preferences like "disable cookies until I've seen a policy" or whatever.

It's just an idea but we've implemented it on our sites and will be interested to see what others think:

http://blog.silktide.com/2012/09/fixing-a-broken-cookie-law/

Windows will sell regardless. It's a bit like if Google does something to the UI which people don't like - people complain, and some may leave - but the vast majority will stomach it. They're just that entrenched. Even Vista sold 400 million copies.

So by foisting Metro on their existing audience they virtually guarantee hundreds of millions of Metro users (albeit on the desktop, or hybrid platforms, at first). That gets their new OS traction, attracting developers, building a software library and brand equity.

If they don't do that, they'd be stuck selling Windows AND selling a competing OS at the same time (that rarely works out well). And they'd be up against iOS and Android purely on their own merits. With the market as busy as it is now, that'd be equivalent to releasing the Blackberry Playbook.

Of course I could be wrong - this is all just my speculation (I'm the OP btw).

Firstly, Windows CE was demonstrably years behind tech-wise - even a causal grandmother consumer could see the difference between an iPhone and a CE device. That's not the case here: this looks (to casual eyes) like an iPad equivalent.

Secondly that time round they went at it by making the phone alude to the Windows brand. Here they're using the Windows sales (which are assured) to get Metro in front of users.

Thirdly they're now copying a proven thing (the iPad). Last time they were half-leading the charge for semi-smartphones, and never figured out the right tech to evangelise people. They've always been better at copying than at innovating afresh.

Forthly they're all in. They basically screwed the desktop OS over to put tablets front and centre. All their considerable weight and spending power will be behind this - in shops up and down the land.

Of course it's not over yet. But if they play this right, it could be very interesting game indeed.

I'd argue that reviews and software are less relevant here than they were for say Android in a similar position:

1. People will buy it regardless of reviews (even if only on the desktop at first). Metro is guaranteed to get share off the back of Windows.

2. Developers will follow that share.

Essentially with enough time Microsoft are guaranteed to leverage their Windows share to Metro, and combined with some competitive hardware makes them a force to be reckoned with.

I'm pretty much the definition of an Apple fanboy (I own an iPad, 2 MacBook Pros, an iMac, an iPhone AND APPL stock). And I still stopped to say - that hardware looks impressive. If they can do that to me, well...

Metro is bundled with an OS that is essentially assured a crap-tonne of sales before it's launched. It'll also have more exposure (in retail space etc) than every other laptop and desktop out there.

Not saying it's a slam dunk, but if I were Apple or Google I'd be concerned.