It's very clearly a toy example to demonstrate the idea, and it does so well.
> What we have here is a Rube Goldberg machine, not a cleanly solved engineering problem.
And what _we_ have here is unfounded indignation over a perfectly fine way to solve a problem. People have been using linked libraries to re-use code across languages since forever, it's fine. This solution isn't very different, it just makes shipping easier.
As a parting comment, "sound software architecture" is not a decided upon principle which can be empirically determined, and if it was we'd all be out of a job.
War is a symptom of various causes, like over-population, changing geographical conditions, and just plain old greed. It is not a root cause. If humans had no bloodthirst we would still wage war, so long as we had a will to survive (something which would be difficult to take out of a lifeform).
The actual article only asserts that military innovation is a predictor for social complexity, which is pretty different from saying that "war makes society complex".
> “Nobody likes this ugly idea because obviously warfare is a horrible thing, and we don’t like to think it can have any positive effects.”
The implicit assumption being that a more complex society _is_ a good thing, which is not clear to me.
They did this in a few places in caphill during covid, 16th and 11th being big examples. The cars have since been allowed back on those roads, though. Someone went tearing down 11th in their jeep at easily 50mph the other day, made me really really miss those days.
- A lot of practice, which stemmed from a lot of fooling around and abandoned side-projects. I would deliberately start projects which were way over my head, with no intention of even getting something working, just to see how far I could get before getting bored.
- Learning new languages which had vastly different paradigms than the ones I was used to. Java to Perl to Javascript to PHP to Erlang to Clojure to Go to... Over time you learn patterns from one place you can bring to another, and learn patterns which exist in most places which you'd rather didn't.
- Lots of experience in the actual workforce, building things people (supposedly) wanted. There are aspects of programming which people spin their wheels on which really don't matter in the long run, and conversely there are aspects which go ignored but are very important. Working on real, rubber-to-the-road projects gives you perspective on what actually matters.
- Being a daily archlinux user (I don't use any non-archlinux OS on any machine I own). Yes, it's hard. Yes, it's an incredibly good use of your time to figure out. Once you're comfortable in arch, every other Unix-like OS (ie, most of them that you'll ever probably work with) will feel familiar.
I don't think that's what web3 is, that's just one direction some are taking it. Web3 is a move away from centralized platforms to ones which are either decentralized or more directly controlled by users (self-hosted, federated).
> Like anything blockchain there is no real solution for how to handle records becoming stale over time without a central authority that manages disputes.
I don't understand this part. In pretty much every decentralized name system I've seen a user pays to own a name for a period of time, there's no stale records.
Link doesn't load, so with only the title to go on...
It feels like it's implying that sincere is the opposite of cynical? But someone (me) could be sincerely cynical. Or falsely optimistic.
In any case, signaling sincerity sounds a bit like fighting for peace, and doesn't give me high hopes for this article whenever we do get to find out what it says.
(It _is_ sort of fun to have this playground though, where we can all just freely admit we didn't read the article, and riff off the title alone)
If anyone had ever perused around the steem network (pre-Justin Sun takeover), you'd know what twitter would become if posting/liking/retweeting ever got monetized. It was a strange place. It might still be, but it seems to mostly be chinese posters now so I can't judge.
On the flip side, monetizing social interactions is a great way to suck the vitality and soul out of them, which would fastly reduce twitter's impact on the real world. So if you don't like twitter this isn't the worst proposal.
There's no perfect solution, but you can make it painful. One solution I've seen, which only works in a server-side rendered site, is for the server to generate a random name for each form field being rendered. The mapping of random id to real field name is kept in the user's session information server-side, so the translation is then done server-side as well whenever the user performs an action.
At that point anyone writing a library like this would need to actually pull in the rendered page on which the user is supposed to be navigated, scrape the field names off of that (which won't be easy), and only _then_ could they perform the form action.
But if you're a big enough site, someone will likely still take the time to do it.
In putting together my own RSS feed recently, and trying to figure out the best way to sync it with all my devices, I realized the simplest way was to just turn the aggregated links into a webpage and publish that publicly. There's no reason not to, and now others can use it as well!
It's at https://news.cryptic.io, if anyone wants to see the output. I recommend others do the same if you like.
The difficult part of using RSS is the actual curation part, so it's cool to see a trend (2 datapoints is a trend?) of folks doing that work up front and sharing it with others.
> "hike" (just long walk since I live in flat Houston)
I've been calling it "urban hiking" and everyone thinks I'm joking. But why drive all the way to the wilderness to do a hike, when I can just walk out the door?
> When Peña downloaded the Bird app and agreed to its terms in August 2018, he unwittingly indemnified Bird against any lawsuits. Bird now claims that Peña owes the company $322,171, the amount it has spent so far defending Los Angeles against the lawsuit.
That's ok, and happens frequently. "I don't have time to fully comprehend everything that's happening over there, but COWORKER is handling it and I don't see any obvious problems with their approach. :+1: and moving on".
Maybe some teams don't work this way, and require more direct participation and signing-off from members, which is fine too.
Nowhere in the post does it mention the author asking anybody to do any work. Their coworker showed up asking questions about something they're working on.
I'm afraid you don't understand how nebula works. A nebula cluster is fully self-contained, you are responsible for distribution of your own certs and hosting of your own lighthouse instances, there is no phoning home to any outside parties.
Under the hood nebula uses the noise protocol, the same used by wireguard.
Most software that I use regularly which does color output does it well, and it's probably a net benefit for me.
But sometimes software that I use irregularly, or only in specific circumstances, does it poorly, and it's a real pita. I've had occasions where I missed entire pieces of output because they rendered as the background color for some reason. So for those cases it'd be nice to have a universal switch, so to speak, to just turn it off.
I also get that for some people it's just an aesthetic choice... I don't think color is _that_ helpful that someone would be impaired by not having it.
All that said, this proposal reminds me of that one xkcd with the 13 competing standards.
Bitcoin. People may complain about the volatility, but you only have to hold it long enough to send it, and they only have to hold it long enough to sell, if that's what they care to do.
> What we have here is a Rube Goldberg machine, not a cleanly solved engineering problem.
And what _we_ have here is unfounded indignation over a perfectly fine way to solve a problem. People have been using linked libraries to re-use code across languages since forever, it's fine. This solution isn't very different, it just makes shipping easier.
As a parting comment, "sound software architecture" is not a decided upon principle which can be empirically determined, and if it was we'd all be out of a job.