EtDybNuvCu

I'm not gonna bother quoting you to fisk you. Your approach towards my evidence is weak overall. I'm gonna throw more evidence at you.

Miller and Dean Tribble have been working on WeakRefs lately: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-weakrefs

Crockford's personal site no longer has the original JSON description, and neither does the Wayback Machine, but his site does still have a section on E: http://www.crockford.com/

In this talk [0], Crockford discusses the origin of JSON. He mentions working with Chip Morningstar (this guy http://habitatchronicles.com/2017/05/what-are-capabilities/) and has oblique references to his prior work. He doesn't bother to explain what he was doing during the 90s here, and at this point social interaction becomes required to learn more.

'hammering the ES peg in the E hole' is wrong. They're hammering the E peg into the ES hole. Not all of us believe in this approach; some of us think that JS is irredeemable and that we should keep iterating with languages like Pony and Monte which expand on the original E concepts.

Like I said, kicking and screaming. I don't know why you all kick and scream so much, but you do.

[0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-JoyNuQJs

I get to be part of the discussions since I hack on E-related things.

Mark Miller worked on E and then on Google's Caja (stands for 'Capability JavaScript'). He has been leading an effort to port features from Caja into ES via the 'Secure ECMAScript' initiative: https://github.com/drses

Doug Crockford worked on E and ported E's data mini-language, TermL, to JS and it became JSON. He's also done many other things in the JS community. The json.org website still links into the E archeological site from its front page: http://erights.org/data/terml/embeddings.html

The WeakMap feature of ES doesn't mention it in the spec [0], but the 'sealer/unsealer' capability pattern can be implemented on top easily, and in fact having WeakMap is equivalent to having E's brand-maker or Monte's makeBrandPair, as discussed here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/cap-talk/4hPYemjPK_Y

[0] https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-weakmap...

I am pleased to see that features from E continue to be smuggled into ES, like finally-style asynchronous cleanup and template literal enhancements.

Edit: Downvotes can't undo our improvements to ES. We will drag JavaScript and its users, kicking and screaming, to a capability-secure future.

Let us analyze this further. Suppose that Alice browses 4chan. 4chan uses a Google image-classifying captcha. Alice is viewing user-generated content posted for free, including 4chan advertisements. When Alice chooses to post, she completes a captcha for Google and her post is sent to 4chan.

Who gets paid for 4chan's content? Alice does not profit. 4chan's users do not profit. 4chan 'profits' via advertising revenue but they actually operate at a loss.

Who is left to get paid? Google. Google gets a human-completed captcha for its machine-learning projects.

I look forward to the demise of the Web and its replacement with a content-addressed alternative where your views will be technologically obsolete.

I feel like users should be compensated for giving Google their time and mental energy since this is literally making users manually tag their machine-learning corpus for free.

As a resident of Oregon, I notice a curious pattern wherein shitty knockoff or generic products are more likely to carry the warnings, and the warnings don't say which ingredients caused the warnings to be issued. Doing reading on various product ingredients is interesting; in many cases, the manufacture of the product is hazardous to the workers, and so I have begun to see Prop 65 stickers as telling me that the laborers who produced the product worked in unsafe conditions.

In the specific case of coffee, it seems that this ruling was quite reasonable on the facts, up to the still-open question of whether acrylamide really should be considered carcinogenic.

Why did your ear, the outer part and the inner bones and the canal and the fluids and the brain, all evolve together in a way that grants Fourier analysis for free? Coincidence?

Maybe maths could help us understand biology or other non-maths fields better!

(Extra mystery: Why did we evolve phase-invariance?)

I've apparently read my last complimentary article for the month. Slate also has an article about this, so if it's a hoax, it's a very convincing hoax: https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/a-close-reading-of-teen...

I'll believe it when I see it; the authors are well-known for arbitrarily-long delays on upcoming releases as well as bare-bones git repositories with nothing inside.

Unfortunately, I expect that this reference implementation will be a pile of C++, but hopefully the protocol itself will be sufficiently-well-documented to permit implementation in other languages.

You'd think so, but check out the 'smooth surprise' in Kahan's great writeup: https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/Mindless.pdf

We can approximate quite a bit, but ultimately further analysis is required to show that there are no such surprises on any particular root-finding problem.

No, the text is awesome. I read it over the weekend.

As an amateur mathematician, don't worry about attempts to apply mathematics to the real world; mathematics is the pattern which emerges from the real world's incidental complexity, and we have always been applying maths to real-world concepts.

Category theory actually provides ways to go from abstract domains to concrete domains. Read the text; it might loosen your view a bit.

Nix is for everybody; I don't do functional programming but I still use Nix for everything. If OpenBSD is simple, or C is simple, and Void is also simple, then it sounds like I should not bother trying out Void.

Why would one use Void instead of NixOS or another Nix-based distro?

While it might seem arrogant of the author to take this stance, the Sampling Theorem generalizes extremely well and is considered an extremely stable result. My favorite generalized Sampling Theorem is https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0324

To give context to all of the surrounding links, which are all about libel in the UK, remember that truth is not an absolute defense to libel in the UK. In addition, the burdens of evidence are different.

You mentioned elsewhere that you haven't been asked any hard questions. So, here's the question: Does this 'quality' of art exist in the things which we observe? Or is it subjective, existing only in the observer?

Please think hard on this. Take as much time as you need. When you're ready, first write down your answer in as much detail as you like, to your own confidence. Then, pop open Pirsig's Zen and the Art, starting on p228, and read his thoughts and see what you think.

It's not just arrogant, it's disappointing.

I could ask you to answer 'the big questions', to tell us what life means or what the teleological truth about our creators or why we seem to all broadly agree on quality of artwork but can't seem to write down the rules of agreement. But you only have those answers for yourself. Further, if the answers which make sense to you can fit on a single page, they likely don't make sense to anybody else.

While you're not a solopsist, you haven't really advanced the state of the discussion.

People are uncomfortable with Malthusian conclusions when applying his model to other systems. Malthus highlighted a tension between the relative sizes of populations in certain resource-allocation games wherein a population both wants more members but also wants more resources per member.

Books, as traditionally written, are too big for the amount of information which they typically contain. We need knowledge representation which is capable of coherently and consistently storing information in a more direct, relational format.

Most software is terrible because the existing corporate power structures, which concentrate the wealth and power necessary to sustain lasting projects, do not have any incentives to make good software. Hackers are assholes because it's our only defense against suits.

I have been MitM'd by my ISP, Comcast, multiple times. Their injection only works on HTTP without TLS.

Discord's founders promised open-sourcing their client and API long ago. I don't think it'll ever happen. Still, it's great to see them contributing to the wider community.

I am deeply disappointed by Discord's approach to Free Software in general, although I understand that they deeply desire the same business model as Slack or Hipchat. It'd be nice if we could stop balkanizing chat already.

Not sure whether this is being hyped extra due to Intel's desire to tar and feather AMD. Certainly, the FUD around where AMD's chips are made is other-than-honest, and many parts of the paper are blatantly speculative.

One part of the paper claims that AMD's use of East Asian IP is inherently inferior and established IP-based backdoors in Ryzens. With such a bold claim, put up or shut up, please.

Nonetheless, the vulns appear real, but without PoC, all CTS has here is vapor, and they don't even have PoCs internally for all of the exploits which they claim to be documenting.

Please don't use those DXTn formats; they're still legally toxic due to patents.

Facebook and Google? They use IRC internally for technical reasons. IRC doesn't fall over. Googlers internally revolted when they were told to use Hangouts internally.

XMPP works great and I've used it at several employers. There's no technical reasons to avoid it; it really is all about lock-in and corporate planning.

I've watched Ralph struggle for years against corporate asshats. It's a real tragedy that all these companies don't participate in open standards. We shouldn't have ever expected good things from Slack.

Interesting syntax. Can Picat programs be run backwards or in other-than-expected directions, as in Prologs and Kanrens? This relational aspect is the killer feature of logical languages, and it would be unfortunate if Picat doesn't have it.

The article doesn't render with JS disabled, but does render in Firefox's reader mode.

This sounds hilarious and awesome. Disclosure: I once worked at Google.

Importantly, if I sit down at a piano for a few minutes, stare at the keys, and don't play, I have not performed Cage's work. There is a subtle nuance here.

All of our reasoning would be much easier if free will were an illusion. Perhaps we should stop fighting it.