Never? We already had this discussion about JVM, and we know for a fact that it's possible for JIT to achieve better performance with that damned bytecode compared to natively compiled equivalent.
>modern tech first took away the passion, by making everything a product
I find this claim unparseable in logical sense (I see where it goes emotionally, of course). Enthusiasm and "product-ness" are not mutually exclusive at all.
I fail to see what exactly is explained, or clarified by the theory here. Postmodernist philosophers are notorious for writing texts which make readers struggle. Surely, it doesn't mean "Foucault-ese" is somehow more stochastically generated than "Claudese".
Account is compromised as long as it could be accessible to someone for reading, and potentially impersonation. Possibility to revoke access doesn't mean 'uncompromisable', it means 'easier mitigatable'. The real barrier here is practical restriction of access, and OS-level data encryption, and it works equally well (or equally bad) for any software, whether it's XMPP-based or it's Signal.
I read it, and my disappointment was immeasurable, and day ruined. The novel is just bad. It seems the real story is that it was a draft which J.Vernes and his publisher discarded exactly because it was below expected quality line, and not because "prophecy implausible". Fast forward to our times, and someone decided (not without a reason) that it's possible to sell anything with J.Vernes name on it, and marketed it as a "lost manuscript" accidentally found in "family safe".
I was healthy enough, and my mood was normal for an adult Eastern European, I was struggling with constant tiredness though, and it seemingly helped. Can't comment on longevity, I'm still alive so the data point isn't ready for analysis!
They are decentralized cause they operate on a sort of consensus between nodes as was original premise. Are they "very decentralized" depends on your definition of "very", of course, and techical realities of a particular situation.
I don't play this kind of games at all, but I still can sympathize with you if it's your preferred pastime, and it doesn't work as good as you'd like. I just don't think it warrants a conclusion that those nets in which we are arguing are broken. They are tangibly, observably doing pretty well. And I find that the idea that in a shiny world of pure IPv6 central servers/nodes would decentralize themselves comes from deep misunderstanding about what "normal" humans want.
Yes, and DynDNS too. Which is fine, cause it works, and that is what I said. The claim to which it replies is that people have to pay to Dropbox cause poor souls were stopped from sharing files using existing technologies like FTP by the damned IPv4, and not because they simply prefer an out-of-the-box GUI thing.
>it would never have existed in a world without NAT because it wouldn't have been needed,
I'm sorry, but this claim is one of the brightest examples of false consenses effect I've seen in ages. People generally just prefer an icon on desktop to click/tap. And that's the reason Dropbox found its audience.
You absolutely can do it within the existing paradigm, in a number of ways, actually. Search for iroh, or DynDNS for example.
And if you seriously believe that Dropbox appeared because of NAT, and not because people prefer out-of-the-box solutions, I can only suggest you to go out of your bubble, and discuss technical issues with random people.
"Intended" btw is not even an argument. Internet wasn't intended for many things which we happily do here.
There are working procedures to follow in such situations, and minimally competent ISPs deal with them well enough so that most users don't even know the problem exists.
It's slightly unrealic idea though, as most of internet users are consumers, and that's the role they really prefer. That's why Dropbox gained popularity in spite of, you know, the fact that we all can do it with FTP.
It's rubberducking tool, and if really works as advertized, it could be good. But the name is complete failure because it speaks only to author's own thoughts, and carries no useful info to the outside world. But triggers every deep philosopher on the nets to show off and spam around about unrelated things (as observed here). And on top it's incorrectly spelled which triggers me!
Clothes were more expensive (relatively to income), while manual labor offer was in excess, and washing machines were big, not particularly good at their job, and needed constant supervision. So, all in all, there's no hard questions here. Meanwhile, authors made an impressive work trying to spice up otherwise bland text with as much "social and racial dynamics" ritualistic mentions as possible.
Language control, and manipulation is definitely a thing in postmodern political struggles, but it's not what's happening exactly here. In the States the social side of politics has been on top for quite some time, so polarization happened on this gradient with terminology (right-left, con-lib) following it.
Also, maybe you shouldn't use that blaming "you" when you don't know who are you answering to? Just a friendly suggestion!
But Inform7 doesn't seem to be a NL programming really. I went to read the website (it's a mess btw), and my understanding is that it's built around strict rules, and patterns one must follow, i.e. it's is as formal as Python. It just takes a lot of efforts to look natural. So it's not unlike Perligata which was a joke allowing to write working Perl code in Latin. It just went much farther because it's not intended to be a joke, but the principle remains.
I don't understand how this can succeed. From customer POV there are benefits, but they are not immediately practical. It seems that huge amount (if not majority) happily uses membership/discount cards/apps which reduce anonymity anyway. For merchants it's rather a nuisance, I guess? From political authorities POV it's a solution in search of a problem, I think. Because why would they even care about buyer's anonymity?