Run into a similar problem with my blog this year. After spending some time trying to resolve it, I just gave up.
I can understand that every now and then Google changes it's rules and validation procedures, so that what used to work now gets removed from the index out of sudden, given their fight with spam and slop. But what I'm struggling to understand is how could Google crawler and Google Search Console be so bad so that:
* google crawler stops fetching sitemap out of sudden, even though Google claims it's an important signal for the search engine
* requesting sitemap refresh via GSC fails on "unknown" error, which is puzzling considering according to my web logs, nobody tried to load it between my request and the error
* after fixing an error, validation job gets stuck for weeks, only to fail for unclear error
* random deindexing events as explained in the post
And I don't buy the argument that this is necessary for Google to deal with spam, because Bing Webmaster Tools just works flawlessly, and they have to deal with it as well.
I don't understand how a small business deal with this kind of issues.
> What is the overhead on a FUSE filesystem compared to being implemented in the kernel?
The overhead is quite high, because of the additional context switching and copying of data between user and kernel space.
> Could something like eBPF be used to make a faster FUSE-like filesystem driver?
eBPF can't really change any of the problems I noted above. To improve performance one would need to change how the interface between kernel and user space part of FUSE filesystem works to make it more efficient.
That said FUSE support for io_uring, which got merged recently in Linux 6.14, has a potential there, see:
> Isn't it time to update the law and catch up with tech?
In case of Telegram groups you mention, local authorities can use existing laws regulating public social networks (Telegram really works similar to Facebook in these use cases, these telegram groups are neither private nor end to end encrypted). The fact that Telegram doesn't cooperate is not because of lack of regulation, but lack of leverage against it (which seems to be one of the reasons why authorities in France detained Telegram CEO recently).
Yes, the first web browser/editor was a GUI application from the start, so was the original Tim's idea. But the first browser/editor was working on NeXT machines only, which were very expensive and rare. Only few people actually had the opportunity to experience the web this way and most people seen this software in action as a demonstration only.
The first browser most people used when introduced to the web was a "dumb" command line client https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Mode_Browser. It was as simple as possible, so that it could be compiled on any platform and used over telnet, it wasn't even using curses library.
So the early web users were experiencing the web via text browsers only until the rise of gui browsers later.
I wonder whether there are some new developments in digital archeology here which makes the source complete enough for one to be able to compile it (assuming one has access to a NeXT machine with its app builder from early 1990s).
One way to look at this code is as a quick prototype to get the idea into real thing to play with. And to appreciate that, one have to realize that the original idea included both reading and editing of web pages easily in the same client in WYSIWYG fashion.
I wrote the program using a NeXT computer. This had the advantage that there were some great tools available -it was a great computing environment in general. In fact, I could do in a couple of months what would take more like a year on other platforms, because on the NeXT, a lot of it was done for me already. There was an application builder to make all the menus as quickly as you could dream them up. there were all the software parts to make a wysiwyg (what you see is what you get - in other words direct manipulation of text on screen as on the printed - or browsed page) word processor. I just had to add hypertext, (by subclassing the Text object)
This is likely url of XFIND gateway[1,2] which was basically a first web service making information from XFIND information system available via web. It was already in operational/demo-able state along with WorldWideWeb browser/editor (NeXT), Line mode browser (dumb command line client) in early stage of the web in the end of 1990. This is because gateways like these were crucial for the web to take of in the particle physics scientific community in the first years of the project.
This may seem obvious and boring now, but back then, it made a real difference (copy pasting a section from my old post [3]):
... a physicist from German particle physics lab DESY who get used to look up information via XFIND at CERN, but using it from DESY was bit clumsy. First of all he had to telnet to CERN, then login to IBM CERNVM machine, then start XFIND there and then finally place his query to XFIND. Moreover as the connection was slow an unstable, one have to repeat this procedure again in case of a network failure. Compared to this using Line Mode Browser from DESY to directly access XFIND Gateway at CERN was a big improvement, which helped the web to spread to DESY.
> As some cars gain more autonomy, it's probably helpful if they have a way to signal their intentions to other road users.
My first though was exactly that, this looks useful. That said, as I'm thinking about it bit more, it's not easy for me to come up with nice examples of situations when this signal is actionable, clear and useful. I doubt most people understand what level 3 autonomous driving means nor what to expect from a car driving in this mode in a particular situation, esp. when there will be differences across car manufacturers.
I would say that the web become popular way before significant malicious actors adapted to the web arrived. The web stated as an open system available to be used for practical use cases, and grown exponentially from there.
And even though there are multiple people requested, the CERN management approved just 2 full time people to work on the project (Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau), and on top of that assumed work of Nicola Pellow (a summer internship) and allowed Bernd Pollermann to spend some (limited) time to work on FIND gateway. So nobody actually worked as Hyper-Librarian or as X-windows and human interface engineer during early stages of the web at CERN. Which is why it would be hard to assign names to "RJ" or "KG".
> It envisioned some kind of a collaborative web where readers were also publishers, but it didn't go into much detail. AFAIK this phase was never completed, and IMO this is a major reason why the web is so centralized today, why users have no control of their data, and why it's primarily aimed towards consumers.
> Had publishing content been as easy as consuming it was from the start, there would've been more tooling built around this concept ..
I have red book "How the Web was Born" by James Gillies, R. Cailliau, and the reason why the original vision didn't fly is bit more complicated.
The thing is that the editing/publishing part was in fact part of the fist prototype from the beginning (without any way to edit remote resources though)! But to make the system usable early for as many users as possible, this feature was not included in the dumb terminal or vt100 browser, or any other browsers which followed it.
Btw some time ago here on hn, I run into a person who was among the early users of the dumb terminal browser (aka line mode browser), but he didn't know much about the 1st prototype and it's editing feature.
And I would say that it would be very difficult to figure out how to make the original vision or browser/editor fly while at the same time trying to make the early web useful to early users and on top of that driving adoption as fast as possible. The CERN invested money into this proposal expecting some outcome, not a 10 years of vaporware (like some other hypermedia systems ended up, ehm). Moreover if Tim and Robert weren't able to focus on demonstrating that their proposal is practical (remember that while you find their vision familiar and understandable, it was not the case back then), it could have easily failed early on, and we could have ended up with a proprietary closed system(s) from the start.
Btw I wrote a blog post about this very topic some time ago, if you are interested in more details or would like to see additional references from this period, you can have a look:
Yeah. This is why I doubt it's a good strategy for Google in the long term. Sooner or later, someone will be finally pissed off enough to go after this practice (either a government or another big US company).
That said, there seems to be no legal way for a big Czech company to go neither against Google or the scammers, otherwise this would have been already resolved. CEZ (one of the companies being impersonated by the scammers here) made a press release about this almost 2 years ago (references are in Czech):
I reported about 5 such ads just this moth, all clear financial scams impersonating well known people and companies in Czech republic (where I live), only to be told that youtube checked my claim and that the add in question doesn't break any youtube policy.
Obviously nothing is forcing Google to deal with this in any way. But I wonder how could that work out for Google in the long run.
Oh, you are indeed right about the figure element! Sorry for missing your point at first.
I would not blame this on pandoc though, it's my mistake of missing what the intended purpose of figure element is, because I haven't studied the spec and browsers doesn't do anything useful with it (as you pointed out). That said if I used pandoc to generate pdf via latex, I would have noticed that, since the figures are repositioned as expected in such case.
And while I agree that in the current state, it's kind of pointless for browsers to try to take advantage of this element when most of the real code is against the spec, I believe that it didn't help that browsers didn't do that in the beginning when nobody was using it yet. But since the spec is not explicitly asking for anything, browsers did the bare minimum.
While I can imagine 2 use cases already:
i) better layout of printed page (eg. when I try to print my blog post, firefox will happily cut a figure in half if I select print on a5 paper even though it could try to reorganize it bit smarter ...)
ii) similar to what you describe, an ability to show the figures in a separate window so that you can see the text and figures at the same time (this is actually similar to a picture-in-picture like feature for images what I describe in the blog, and to be honest I would still find that kind of useful)