svieira

> Why is it using an NIH format instead of using XML or INI or something?

The original suggestion was LISP-like or X.11 configuration file syntax (https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS20/history.html) - XML was still too new (but look at https://www.w3.org/wiki/Xsl-fo if you want to see what the W3C came up with for "styling, but in XML format for XML documents"). My guess is that the declarative shape imitates SGML with a C syntax to make it easier to understand.

> It's too global. This is good for consistent styling but bad for modularity.

Yeah, that was an explicit design choice - one that we're now asking for (and getting) more control over as the web continues to expand, but it's not like it wasn't considered, it was considered and rejected for MVP as it were.

> Pseudo-classes are ugly and weird and were a way-too-late NIH thing.

https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1/#pseudo-classes-and-pseudo-elemen... were in CSS 1 released as a specification in 1998. Ugly-and-weird-and-special-cased ... sure, but what would you replace them with?

Depends ... are you using `display: table` or are you literally using HTML instead of CSS? If you are doing the former, you know CSS. If you're doing the latter, then you haven't demonstrated that you know CSS and we'll have to talk to figure out if you know it and are avoiding it or if you just don't know it.

Does a prolog program think?

> Yes, in fact, it turns out that language encodes and embodies reasoning ... No one had the faintest clue

Funnily enough, they did, if you go back far enough. It's only the deconstructionists and the solipsists who had the audacity to think otherwise.

This is the premise of The Napoleon of Notting Hill by G. K. Chesterton. In 1984 (100 years after the writing of the book), the King of England is now selected by lottery. Much wildness ensues.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/20058/20058-h/20058-h.htm

> After 6 months I let them go, the improvement was far too slow.

The bit that's missing from this story is the "why" the improvement was far too slow. Was it primarily a failure to hire the right people, a failure to teach them what you wanted them to learn, a failure to understand what you needed to teach, or a deliberate lie on the part of all three of them to steal from you?

> or at least a comfortable living

I know a farrier. The pay comes straight out of your body and cannot be called comfortable.

She objectively caused you to transition to an objective state which you both experienced subjectively!

You mean something like https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/request?

Or more like "on ad network X you match for keywords A, B, F, G"?

Yes, but my point is that without a reasonable supervision tree and crash boundary the difference between a composition of Result-returning functions that bottoms out in main's implicit panic and an explicit panic is nil operationally.

While lexically the unwrap actually puts the unhandledness of the error case as close to the source of the issue's source as possible. In order to get that lexical goodness you'd need something much more fine grained than Result.

All that means is that the `Failure` bubbles up to the very top of `main` (in this scenario) because we're only caring about the happy path (because we can't conceive of what the unhappy path should be other than "crash") and then hits the `panic("Well, that's unexpected")` explicitly in Place B rather than Place A (the `.unwrap`). I'm not sure how that's _better_.

I rather prefer the holistic take that we are our whole selves and not just the part that reflects on what we do or the part that reacts to external and internal material stimuli. We know we can change the instincts, emotions, and hormones when they conflict with what we know by reflection to be just and good. To put it another way, we know that we can do things "without thinking" that are either just or unjust and by reflection can achieve some level of mastery over the direction of our impetuses.

It doesn't cost the fully salary of the woman, it redirects it to something that can't be captured by large scale economics. Which, if you're trying to break the backs of the uber wealthy, is an excellent way to do it.

> Women won't be put back into financial captivity without a fight

This, along with the language of the supposedly "pro-male" camp ("why shackle yourself to someone who will just rough you over for most of your paycheck later and leave") are both approaching marriage wrong. If you're trying to achieve a good that cannot be had individually (a happy marriage) then both sides have to freely give 100% of what the shared good requires. Marriage cannot work as a Mexican standoff between two parties who are trying to take as much as possible from it without giving anything in return.

Dangerous? Yes. It's the most dangerous thing you can ever do, to take yourself in your own hands and offer yourself to another.

Mostly - if the IDs are assigned at compile time, how do you deal with _runtime_ locations like "the fifth iteration of a For loop"?

Yep, that's definitely true. That being said, figuring out which approach to take requires paying attention (which you did), there's no guarantee that any two people (or any one person at two times) will be in the same cohort.

> Morality is a feeling

It isn't. Otherwise, the Nazis were moral. As were the Jews. But in that case, all moral truth is relative, which means absolute moral truth doesn't exist. Which means that "moral" is a synonym for "feeling" or "taste". Which it is not.

> My philosophy is that consciousness is orthogonal to reality.

It is how you and I experience reality and we exist in reality, so I'm not sure how it could be anything other than congruent with reality.

> Whether or not anything is conscious has, by definition, no observable effect to anything else.

It would be an interesting and rather useless definition of "conscious" that didn't allow for expressions of consciousness. Expression isn't required for consciousness, but many conscious observers can be in turn observed in action and their consciousness observed. Which maybe is what you are saying, just from the perspective that "sometimes you can't observe evidence for the consciousness of another"?

I think that Plato's dialogs are well worth reading too.

Also, just so you know, Jesus is as or more historically "likely to be real" than Socrates (three major works written by two people who knew Him, multitudes more written by those who knew those who knew Him, mentions by multiple historians of the period, a thriving cult in spite of vicious persecutions, etc.). Socrates has three contemporaries (Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes) and then the writings of Plato project him beyond his time and into the philosophical context.

But perhaps you mean "the Jesus of the Gospels" as opposed to "Yeshua ben Yoseph min Natzret" when you said "historic" here (there's good arguments for Jesus-of-the-Gospels being Yeshua ben Yoseph too, but one thing at a time).

Yes, I'm trying to explain my position so that you can understand it. Which I am not doing very well.

Chacun son truc, I believe as there isn't a moral component to this on per se.

Flash was a plugin to the browser ecosystem that no one ever made a commitment to other than "here it is".

SSLv2 and v3 all are protocol versions that anyone can still support, and removing support for them breaks certain web properties. This is less of a problem because the implementations of the protocol are themselves time-limited (you can't get an SSL certificate that is valid until the heat death of the universe).

FTP and gopher support wasn't removed from the browser without a redirect (you can install an FTP client or a Gopher client and the browser will still route-out-to-it).

The point isn't "RFC = commitment", the point is that "the culture of the web" has, for a very long time, been "keep things working for the users" and doing something like removing built-in FTP support was something that was a _long_ time in coming. Whereas, as I understand it, there is a perfectly valid way forward for continuing to support this tech as-is in a secure manner (WASM-up-the-existing-lib) and instead of doing that, improving security for everyone and keeping older parts of the web online, the developers of the browsers have decided that "extra work" of writing that one-time integration and keeping it working in perpetuity is too burdensome for _them_. It feels like what is being said by the browser teams is, "Yes, broken websites are bad for end users, yes, there are more end users than developers, yes, those users are less technical and therefore likely are going to loose access to goods they previously had ... but c'est la vie. Use {Dusk, Temple}OS if you don't want the deal altered any further." And I object to what I perceive as a lack of consideration of those who use the web. Who are the people that we serve.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17141024 links to https://developer.chrome.com/blog/smooshgate which says:

> Shipping the feature in Firefox Nightly caused at least one popular website to break.

and links to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1443630 which points to a single site as being broken. There's no check as to the size of the impacted user base, but there is a link in the blog post to https://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#support-existi... which says:

> Existing content often relies upon expected user agent processing and behavior to function as intended. Processing requirements should be specified to ensure that user agents implementing this specification will be able to handle most existing content. In particular, it should be possible to process existing HTML documents as HTML 5 and get results that are compatible with the existing expectations of users and authors, based on the behavior of existing browsers. It should be made possible, though not necessarily required, to do this without mode switching.

> Content relying on existing browser behavior can take many forms. It may rely on elements, attributes or APIs that are part of earlier HTML specifications, but not part of HTML 5, or on features that are entirely proprietary. It may depend on specific error handling rules. In rare cases, it may depend on a feature from earlier HTML specifications not being implemented as specified

Which is the "servant-oriented" mindset I'm talking about here.

> Removing Flash broke tons of sites

Yes, but Flash wasn't part of a standard, it was an ad-hoc thing that each browser _happened_ to support (rough consensus and working code). There were no "build on this and we'll guarantee it will continue to work" agreement between authors and implementers of the web. XSLT 1.0, as painful as it is, is part of that agreement.

Co-authored is fine, thanks for asking!

> this was a bog standard example of a draft proposal where a bug was discovered, and rollout was adjusted

Yes, but the "bug" here was "a single website is broken". Here, we are talking about an outcome that will break many websites (more than removing USB support would break) and that is considered acceptable.

> That's a proposal for Javascript, whose controlling body is TC39

Yes, and the culture of TC39 used to be the culture of those who develop tools for using the web (don't break the Space Jam website, etc.)

FYI, you're missing two patterns that allow the `--key=value` admirers and the `-alltheshortopsinasinglestring` spacebar savers among us to be happy (for the otherwise excellent options parsing code).

   shopt -s extglob
   case "$1"
     # Flag support - allow -xyz z-takes-params
     -@(a|b|c)*) _flag=${1:1:1}; _rest=${1:2}; shift; set -- "-$_flag" "-$_rest" "$@";;
     # Param=Value support
     -?(-)*=*) _key=${1%%=*}; _value=${1#*=}; shift; set -- "${_key}" "$_value" "$@";;
   esac

A nice recent example is "smooshgate", wherein it was determined that breaking websites with an older version of Mootools installed was not an acceptable way to move the web forward, so we got `Array.prototype.flat` instead of `Array.prototype.flatten`: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17141024

> I don't recall a part of the web where browser developers were viewed as not having agency

Being a servant isn't "not having agency", it's "who do I exercise my agency on behalf of". Tools don't have agency, servants do.

> Removing XSLT from browsers was long overdue

> Google is willing to remove standards-compliant XML support as well.

> They're the same picture.

To spell it out, "if it's inconvenient, it goes", is something that the _owner_ does. The culture of the web was "the owners are those who run the web sites, the servants are the software that provides an entry point to the web (read or publish or both)". This kind of "well, it's dashed inconvenient to maintain a WASM layer for a dependency that is not safe to vendor any more as a C dependency" is not the kind of servant-oriented mentality that made the web great, not just as a platform to build on, but as a platform to emulate.

> The nineteenth century decided to have no religious authority. The twentieth century seems disposed to have any religious authority.

An article in Illustrated London News, April 26, 1924 by G. K. Chesterton

Ah, so you don't do parallel with implicit IDs right now, I'm guessing. Or you do, but it has some interesting bugs as the IDs shift around? Or the scope of the auto-incrementing number is lower than "the entire program" so parallel works?

You might be interested in Flix:

https://play.flix.dev/?q=PQgECUFMBcFcCcB2BnUBDUBjA9gG15JtAJb...

is an embedded Datalog DB and query in a general-purpose programming language.

More examples on https://flix.dev/

That is true, I'm glad that LLMs at least demonstrated for everyone except the most committed solipsists that we are all talking about a shared world state and communicating at least moderately effectively with each other.

I found https://easel.games/docs/learn/language/functions/ids#implic... which suggests they are structure-based, at least, though loops aren't mentioned.

Great documentation, by the by!