projectant

I love freedom. There is also currently a lot of precedent for saying there are wrong ways that people talk. Twitter is full of conversations where one person is criticising the other for using a word the wrong way ( and I don't mean grammar ) or using a particular word, or having a particular idea.

I understand if you feel otherwise, but I see no unfairness in Nobels going only to project leaders and PIs.

I think the sore losers act entitled to something they didn't earn. I don't think that means I'm missing something about humans. Why would you want to suggest that? Your argument ought to stand on its own not by pretending I'm less. That's not nice. Nor kind. But, look, I am missing many many things in my understanding and experience about humans, and life, and every topic, because I don't understand anything completely or nearly so. And I've only experienced what I have in my life. I'm okay with that.

If you think people prefer fairness, then maybe you didn't face what I did, or maybe you just reacted differently (and if you did then you better teach me how!). I learned people prefer themselves, to fairness, and will cooperate or cheat as either pays off.

I'm no better than that. Let me show you: If you don't think the same way as me, then clearly there is something missing about your understanding of humanity, or your experience. See? I like to cheat, too. When it pays off. Or maybe it's fair to give like you get? What do you think, given that you said there's something missing in my understanding, was that comment fair and justified?

My view is both of us are missing many things about understanding and experience, and if we think differently it's just because we had different experiences and reactions. There's not one true way. And I think that's fine. Diversity right?

So if we can put all that nastiness behind us, what's our common ground, how do you think we ought to make the Nobel prizes more fair and still have them be effective? Do you think we ought to preserve, dismantle or alter the hierarchies and institutions that have worked for science? And do you think we can agree that "fairness" is not a universal good, and that in this case we have (possibly competing) interests such as progress, or effectiveness?

It's an unpopular view but I think this is a good start.

Why? Violence is supported and enabled by the narratives people use to justify it. Some element of policing & countering the narrative is going to control ideas that embolden people to commit crimes or to harm others.

It's really no different than saying the way we talk about women, or PoC, or gender, or sex helps constructs the reality of how we behave. A lot of people are already shouldering the burden of trying to police and counter how other people speak and think, but they are often not backed up by legislation in doing so.

Trying to stamp out the wrong ways people talk and think about other people is part of making a society that is more free and just.

I think actually in this case 1984 has the unfortunate chilling effect of making it so easy to equate any sort of control with dire, evil and illogical totalitarian government. It's the sort of "short circuited" thinking that i think impedes people actually thinking clearly or deeply or even at all about these things. In that sense, having neat metaphors from literature to reach for actually harms the public discourse, because it is silenced before it can start.

We do need to be talking about these things, and looking at them, not stereotyping and simplifying them, so I think a proposed piece of legislation is a good start and a sign that people are waking up to the importance of the stories we tell each other about who we are, and what's okay, in shaping and normalizing the culture and society we have.

It's a really, really good piece of work. I hope you keep making tutorials.

I was impressed with the high ratio of useful content to time spent, and how the full tutorial only seemed to take 10 - 20 minutes.

I'm a 6 or 7 year vim veteran, and your tutorial taught me I could combine numbers with commands. I didn't know that!

For anyone reading and scoffing, please don't think I'm some vimless noob, I know %s/regex/replacement/g visual block selection and edit mode ( ctrl-shift-v, cursor, shift-i, double esc ), split mode :sp, and so on, but I never knew about the numbers with commands, nor about shift-X for left of cursor delete.

So even as someone experienced in vim ( and who codes in vim for everything ), this has improved my productivity!

Thank you so much, a great piece of work. Hope you keep making more tutorials on topics.

What's wrong with rewarding the project leaders?

Yes, being part of the team is one achievement, being leader of the team is another achievement on top of that.

Sorry there's not "participation prizes" for everybody, but there are concrete important differences between being team member and team leader, as much as some seem to want to delude themselves otherwise and give themselves the "consolation prize" of feeling good, instead of getting the result (being the PI/project lead and getting the Nobel) they wanted.

Zero sympathy for the people who would want to Nobel, now trying to diminish the achievements of those who won the Nobel, just to console themselves. Everyone knows how science works. There are teams and PIs and projects and project leaders. Instead of crying that the reality is "unfair" if the complainers actually cared enough about winning, they would have tried to position their careers in such a way that they were competitive. To pretend you were disserviced when you know how it works is disempowering your own potential to have done better, and also really disrespectful to diminish the importance of Nobel recognition, to people who contribute to winning those prizes.

TL;DR - Looking at the group complaining about not being recognized, all I see is a bunch of sore losers, inventing disempowering reasons to console themselves, instead of inventing results for themselves. Take personal responsibility, be inspired by the achievements of others, these traits will help you win.

Do people not want to especially reward the small numbers of organisers for their efforts?

Why is it that when a disaster happens numbers are gradually revised upward?

What I'm interested in, is how can they run this stuff? How is it cost effective for them? How is it safe? Runkit is basically free serverless node. It's pretty amazing.

For those interested, the code is here: https://runkit.com/dosyago-coder-0/proxy

It does the simplest possible:

- prepends the URL form to the proxied html page

- prepends a <base> element with the proxied page's uri ( to ensure relative links point to the source and not the proxy )

- prepends a script which captures clicks on anchor links and instead of allowing the navigation to proceed submits the URL ( via the prepended form ) back to the endpoint

Also, for the sake of a technical challenge, I don't know how to get it to work on Amazon.com -- what happens is after the first load, any links clicked seem to break out of the proxy. Anyone who can work out why it doesn't work, please tell me!

edit: oops, seems as if the HN 'glance' of death ( not hug, this has only been on for 20 minutes ) kills it intermittently, and that runkit has a quota that is sometimes exceeded!

Quote of the year:

> But if Facebook is bigger, newer, and weirder than a mere company, surely his trip is bigger, newer, and weirder than a mere presidential run. Maybe he’s doing research and development, reverse-­engineering social bonds to understand how Facebook might better facilitate them. Maybe Facebook is a church and Zuckerberg is offering his benedictions. Maybe Facebook is a state within a state and Zuckerberg is inspecting its boundaries. Maybe Facebook is an emerging political community and Zuckerberg is cultivating his constituents. Maybe Facebook is a surveillance state and Zuckerberg a dictator undertaking a propaganda tour. Maybe Facebook is a dual power — a network overlaid across the U.S., parallel to and in competition with the government to fulfill civic functions — and Zuckerberg is securing his command. Maybe Facebook is border control between the analog and the digital and Zuckerberg is inspecting one side for holes. Maybe Facebook is a fleet of alien spaceships that have colonized the globe and Zuckerberg is the viceroy trying to win over his new subjects.

Exactly. It's like, Woah, hold your horses there. "Obsolete"? I don't think so. To what extent can this IPFS serve an API or a dynamic database at this point? To what extent will it ever be able to do that?

I think HTTP/websockets is very good for these things. Static data is one thing, dynamic is a whole other story. It seems IPFS is just a new distributed way to archive data. So what? It doesn't help serve something like FB over a distributed network does it?

And to what extent could some sort of "protocol" vulnerability stop these networks from being "uncensorable". Are they truly resistant to censorship, or could they be effectively shut down somehow? Wouldn't DDOS attacks cripple these? I mean, that's a crucial flaw, right, you just have to look up all nodes for an piece of content and constantly flood them with DDOS traffic and then, hey, you've censored the network, right?

> There's another kind of person - and there's a lot of them - who thinks those things are important by themselves, and that putting those things ahead of what I think are rule one is ever acceptable.

I think you totally understood my humor. Thanks!

I saw a good blog in 2011 about how it is a waste of time to overbuild things since mostly you are only ever going to use that code for the specific purpose you are writing it, and you'll likely never need to generalize and you'll probably chuck it out anyway and start from scratch.

Obviously there are a bunch of caveats to that and it's not always true that's the case but I think it's a very useful counterpoint to the profession's current best-practice obsession. If you keep it in mind, alongside all the best practices, and you make a choice about approach in any given situation based on appropriateness, rather than just robotically applying best practices or giving into that common Engineer's temptation to overbuild, this counterpoint can help you build quickly just what's needed, which is effective, exactly like you said.

Thank you so much!

I'm concerned about the lack of type annotations. What about XSS prevention? Maintainability? An API? How are people supposed to use this code in future projects? Your variable names don't conform to Code Complete. This code smells funny. Haven't you read clean code? And I don't think it's general enough. What if people want to add columns, but preserve formulas? What made you think you shouldn't use React for this? At least Vue, come on.

ah, if only we could all code just what we needed, instead of over-engineering solutions to problems we wished we had

Cool. Or you can contribute as well. Make a pull request!

There's this: https://github.com/textonly/news

( and its own 'textonly' version https://raw.githubusercontent.com/textonly/news/master/READM... )

Maybe the future history of the web will be Chinese made. Multiple independent app platform on Android there. Also if standardization is slow and mired by incumbent company interests maybe something capable of a unilateral forward thrust into a big Market will have success

No isn't the data binding the Flux part of React, not React itself? I think so... but anyway don't you think this code is good?

This is a bookmarklet to anyone who doesn't know. Code is here also for convenience:

  javascript:(function()%7B(function()%20%7Bconst%20req%20%3D%20new%20XMLHttpRequest()%3Bconst%20key%20%3D%20'AIzaSyAUYMRSUW3BAZLhSTbB1poQuQ4xaqt2C4c'%3Breq.open('POST'%2C%20'https%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleapis.com%2Furlshortener%2Fv1%2Furl%3Fkey%3D'%2Bkey)%3Breq.setRequestHeader(%22Content-Type%22%2C%20%22application%2Fjson%22)%3Breq.responseType%3D%22json%22%3Breq.send(JSON.stringify(%7BlongUrl%3Alocation.href%7D))%3Bconst%20text%20%3D%20document.createElement('textarea')%3Blet%20result%3BsetTimeout(%20()%20%3D%3E%20(document.execCommand('copy')%2Ctext.remove())%2C%20700%20)%3Breq.onreadystatechange%20%3D%20()%20%3D%3E%20%7Bif%20(%20req.status%20%3D%3D%20200%20%26%26%20req.readyState%20%3D%3D%204%20)%20%7Bdocument.body.appendChild(text)%3Btext.value%20%3D%20req.response.id%3Btext.select()%3B%7D%7D%7D())%7D)()

It's a trade off definitely. The way I think of it is, how often would you have to sub? Rarely. Since most uris do not have spaces, and even putting a URL in an address bar will usually sub it.

On the plus side, having a simpler syntax for URLs I feel is more readable which is great for ease of use. I think ~ looks like a link, and @ makes sense semantically.

But to be sure I think the legacy syntax could remain as a fallback / alternative. New syntax is something that could be tried in a flavor.

I think it could be improved by adding some styles to the inserted textarea, such as opacity, or position absolute, or even a pointer events to make sure it is invisible and doesn't interact. Display: none does not work as then select and copy will not work.

I think org-mode is good. But I think that it and markdown could have better syntax for links. Like a link doesn't have to be wrapped in an opener or closer, since any spaces can be escaped. So you could simply do:

~A new search engine@https://google.com

I think considering the status of @ in the rfc this can be parsed. If a link has spaces just replace them with + or %20

That's a good point. How do you create a "local working archive" of a website? It's a really good idea. Want to get started on working on some project like this?

For references, I'm taking implementing the "MyComponent" example from the "Broken Promise of Web Components"[1] article, in minimal JS.

One thing it's meant to show you don't need to "transpile" from a DSL to do this stuff.

Simplifying the way I build web apps means a great deal to me.

[1] https://dmitriid.com/blog/2017/03/the-broken-promise-of-web-...

Github gist version of jsbin page here: https://gist.github.com/dosyago-coder-0/b7bcf95f60b6979de2a0...

But how good can a search engine be if it does not track its humans, and therefore cannot use browsing / search history as contextual clues for query ranking / semantics ?

It might be very good. But can such a system compete with one that does use search history as context?

I find it funny that engineers ( on HN ? ) put on their I'm-a-rigid-logic-thinking-only-engineer cap when it suits them, and their I'm-an-imaginative-open-eyed-creative-rebel cap when it suits them as well. Traits of the first cap include: can't think outside the exact parameters given them, can't 'fill in the blanks' or inference laterally, take words and numbers to be exact limiting things. Traits of the second cap are basically the opposite of these, we can fill in the blanks, and so on.

I don't notice people wearing both hats at the same time much.

Of course, the OP could be satire. When you can't tell the difference between satire and your platform, then ...

Incidentally, if we look sideways a bit the metaphor fits like: Google isn't just linearly bigger, it has nonlinear increases in advantages because of its size, clout, network effects, and so on. So the order of magnitude discrepancy is perhaps justified by attempting to account for these affects. Conversely, it could be suggesting that smaller disruptive and startups ought to spread their influence virally, parasitically, or through insect-like nimbleness and hatching-of-the-1000-eggs reproduction, instead of relying on slower, more "mammalian" reproduction to propagate their influence. Who knows? Hard to say which interpretation is correct, when words are ambiguous and one leaves it to the imagination. You can't even rely on Occam's razor to decide, since the shortest path between two thoughts differs depending on the mind. But maybe that's not a bad thing. Speech & language is nothing more than successful miscommunication. You can't police what you don't understand.

Ok but, in reply to that tweet, one point keccak.team make, which seems valid for non-classified cryptanalysis, is that researchers don't invest time in trying to analyse ARX because the propagation of addition makes it too complicated.

One thing I got from that is that ARX designs are less likely to be broken, not because they are necessarily more secure, but because ARX is often less analysed than designs which yield more concise mathematical representations.

For example see https://github.com/dosyago-coder-0/dosyhil/blob/master/test....

And more diverse at https://github.com/dosyago-corp/pa-os-server/blob/master/vie...

It adds a stylesheet to accept new stylerules. For every element set (CSS selector) you want to watch it adds a new stylerule that makes a no-op animation happen (transform:none -> transform:none). Every time such a node that matches your selector is added to the document, this animation is triggered. When this happens, Sentinel publishes an event to whatever handlers you ask it to, by listening to the 'AnimationStart' event emitted when an animation happens. Pretty clever, but simple, and I think this is not the first source to suggest this approach for watching DOM modification. Note, the unminified dist/sentinel.js is not 682 bytes!