bazoom42

> didn't make for good career advancement for anyone to look into it let alone say it.

Say what? You comment is rather vague but seem to suggest you have some knowledge which have been suppressed by academia.

> it's generally not okay for creators and commentators to go, "Come to your own conclusions, wink wink."

This viewpoint seem completely crazy to me. If audiences cannot be trusted to think for themselves, why should artists be trusted with telling them how to think?

But is it the people who misunderstand the movie, or is it the movie which fails to make the point you think it should make?

It is a classical hollywood trope to preset a “bad guy” protagonist as cool, charming, and resourceful and with a glamorous life.

Hollywood know how to make you like a character and how to make you dislike one.

In this context it means they invaded the Roman empire.

If I understand the article correctly, there is DNA evidence of mass migration from Scandinavia to Northern Poland, but going further south, the evidence points to migration of a smaller elite rather than mass migration.

> In the beginning, there was a big migration, but later they started mingling, and the transmission of Gothic was more of a cultural nature.

In this comment section it seems people really want it to be one or the other, evidence be damned.

Science is not just believing what sounds plausible. It is about gathering evidence. Having historical, archeological and DNA evidence is a lot stronger that just historical evidence alone.

But why not just enable noUncheckedIndexedAccess?

Can’t the type system reject code which undermines the soundness of the type system?

How is what is common in the US relevant when we are talking about the church in Armenia? Christianity is a worldwide phenomenon and much older than the US. Defining Christianity relative to what is the most common denominations in the US is beyound stupid.

> calling them "Christian" is a bit of a stretch

Isn’t the Armenian church like the oldest Christian church? Why wouldn’t they be called Christian?

HN uses JavaScript though, not just plain HTML.

Actors routinely memorize whole plays, so it is not implausible for someone to have memorized 15 min of A Tale of Two Cities.

The claim in the article is he remembered everything he read perfectly, which is wild. But another source claim he specifically memorized the Dickens book to train his English, which sounds more likely.

Is many worlds falsifiable?

Why didnt you vibecode the The nonfunctional requirements?

CSS is for styling and layout, but there is no conceptual reason this couldn’t be defined through functions.

“Code” is not a concern like semantic vs style.

Most regex dialects allow whitespace and comments, so that already gets you halfway there.

Who would want to use a browser which couldn’t render html? Even if a better format arrived, there are millions of already existing html pages which people would want to be able to read.

The cool thing with a wasm-based xslt implementation is there is no need for the browser vendors to gate-keep it. Just use the implementation you prefer.

The reason HTML is more widely used than latex is obviously because browsers support it natively.

It is not because of specific known vulnerabilities. It is because it is old legacy unmaintained code which is rarely used and which has a large attack surface.

XSLT is not going away, it is only in-browser XSLT which is removed. If you are happy with XSLT there is no need to abandon it. Just perform the transformation on the backend.

> XHTML was dropped in favor of HTML5 and XSLT was pretty much useless after that

Client-side XSLT was always pretty useless, but I dont see what HTML5 has to do with it?

The only real use case for client-side XSLT was for styling/layout back before CSS became widely supported. Improvements in CSS support made XSLT unnecessary.

> A HTML parser can become a XML parser by disabling a bunch of special-features

Even if this was true it would still increase complexity to have two parsing modes compared to just a html parser.

The low barrier to authoring was very important. No tools needed except notepad and a browser. Syntax easy to understand and write by hand.

But I don’t think the ambiguous html parsing made it easier. If anything it made it more difficult since you had to test in multiple browsers. Eg a table which was not properly closed would render in IE but not render in Netscape.

> Well an XHTML parser (and serializer) is a lot simpler

Perhaps, but a combined html and xhtml parser is more complex than just a html parser. Since html already is entrenched, xhtml would be in addition to html, not instead of.

> what are the good reasons for dropping legacy code?

Reducing attack surface.

There is nothing component-based about xhtml compared to html. It is just html with xml syntax.

Use a good (human-written) textbook and solve the exercises. Use AI to ask clarifying questions when necessary.

It really depends on context. Are you programming for your own enjoyment or education, are you performing research, or are you paid to solve problems for a business?

In reasearch and academia, originality is celebrated. You don’t get the Macarthur grant by repeating what somebody else already did. But in most business programming, originality is frowned upon unless the value is immediately obvious.

In my experience, many developers enjoy doing things their own unique way. But very few enjoy debugging and maintaining other developers unique approaches.

Something is fishy about this story though. The credentials used was allegedly leaked and purchased on the black market. But the it doesn’t matter how weak or strong the password is.

The information about the leaked password is from the guy claiming to be the hacker who anonymously talked to the media.