creata

Submitters can also edit the title themselves after submitting.

Why? My only guess is that the instructions don't match x86 instructions well (way too few Wasm instructions) and the runtime doesn't have enough time to compile them to x86 instructions as well as, say, GCC could.

Wikipedia mentions that Wasm is faster to parse than asm.js, and I'm guessing Wasm might be smaller, but is there any other reason? I don't think there's any reason for asm.js to have resulted in slower execution than Wasm.

> it's probably going to be even less pretty than transpiling to Javascript already is.

I don't see how it'd be much different to compiling to JavaScript otherwise. Isn't it usually pretty clear where allocations are happening and how to avoid them?

What was preventing the development of Figma before Wasm?

For developing brand new code, I don't think there's anything fundamentally impossible without Wasm, except SIMD.

Emscripten has pthreads. You can multithread it yourself using web workers and shared memory. What's missing?

> a fully-featured JS replacement, targetable in any language

Any language can target a combination of JS and Wasm, right now, to get a "fully-featured JS replacement". How would adding more features to Wasm improve that situation?

But what's the benefit of replacing containers with WASI?

The performance would be worse, and it would be harder to integrate with everything else. It might be more secure, I guess.

They'd be raked over the coals for the lack of accessibility, I hope.

The software could do better, sure, but in this case the accountability clearly falls on the lawyers. It's their job - and it's a job that can profoundly impact people's lives, so they need to take it seriously - to redact information properly.

For people too lazy to click, the second post was:

> I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter.

> Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE.

I'm not sure what the punishment for such a clear but ineffective incitement to violence should be, but it shouldn't be nothing.

> I'm not sure if that has any impact on how fun a game is.

It might if the game has a more-than-perfunctory story, because authors often incorporate their political or religious beliefs into their stories. (This is usually a good thing: most of the novels that people love would be nothing if stripped of those themes.)

> The browser is just a tool, not a religion.

An ad blocker is a very useful tool. Being able to block ads effectively makes the browser much better. I'm not sure how you can call that "religion".

> People use Chrome because it's the best browser.

No they don't. They use Chrome because every Google service nags the shit out of them to use Chrome. People aren't as rational as you make them out to be.

Yes it does. Having a browser that truly has the user's back, without always trying to compromise the user's interests in favor of advertisers - that would be a benefit to society.

I wish Firefox would be that browser.

I can't be bothered addressing the rest because it's like trying to explain emotions to a robot, but if you have a poorly hinted font, you will notice, because it'll be annoyingly blurry unless you have a high DPI display.

That's because it's not an article, it's a section of Butterick's book. (He also has a book at https://practicaltypography.com/ that isn't targeted at lawyers, and I think a lot of the content overlaps.)

I agree that he's a bit too mean to mainstream fonts, though.

I agree! More praise: it's well-hinted, has good support for Unicode and math, and comes packaged with macOS.

It should be mentioned that the x-height is much higher than the usual Times New Roman, which is usually a good thing imo, but different.

> each judge could apply his own preferred styling for working with it

It kind of makes sense to ensure that everyone is seeing the same thing, though, which is something PDF is (relatively) good at.

Tbh whether I use spaces around em dashes depends more on the font than anything. Some fonts have em dashes that are so long that putting spaces around them would be ridiculous.

The "voice" of chatbots comes from the stuff after the main training, which is very different to the average human voice. Even the main training would give you something like "average on the internet" voice, which is quite different to the average human voice.

And a very easy shortcut in Vim: Ctrl+K M -

> none of them have succeeded in spamming the Bitcoin network with blocks they've mined

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have no idea what you're getting at, because the sentence sounds kind of absurd. As a result, I'm not sure if it addresses your point, but just to throw it out there: Bitcoin and anti-spam are different applications of proof of work. Anti-spam has to strike a compromise between being cheap for the user (who is often on relatively low-powered mobile hardware), and yet annoying enough to deter the spammer. It's not unreasonable to believe that such a compromise does not exist.

> Bots may be better than humans at Captchas now, although I'm not certain of that, but they certainly weren't when Signal was designed.

Fair point, but again, even in 2014, an instant messenger with captchas would have much more friction than every other messenger. And captchas aren't just bad because they introduce enough friction to drive away pretty much everybody: they also make users feel like they're being treated as potential criminals.

> I don't see why invite codes would be a problem for mainstream use.

Can you elaborate? Invite codes blocking access to the service itself "like lobste.rs" mean that no one can use your service unless they've been transitively blessed by you. That's obviously going to limit its reach...

> you'd use a proof-of-work scheme

I thought the general belief (e.g., '“Proof-of-Work” Proves Not to Work') was that proof-of-work isn't very good anti-spam.

> or a Captcha

Aren't bots better at those than humans by now?

And making people do captchas in an instant messenger is a great way to make people not use that instant messenger.

> or an invite-code system like lobste.rs or early Gmail.

That's not a long-term option if you want to make something mainstream.

> if you assign no value to your time

We're talking about a personal blog; this sort of fun is what they're made of.

I can't wait for the entire website to be a Magic Eye image.

> You will not stop scrapers.

That's no reason to go down without a fight!

> Second argument against these "protections" is, there are people behind bots

That doesn't hold much water in the context of hosting a blog.

I sympathize with the reactionary. Obviously there's no putting the genie back in the bottle, but it would be nice to live in that world where writing stuff helped human readers more than it helped billion-dollar corporations.

And it can inspire them to learn programming with Lua(u).

I can't see this as decisive.

* The ban only targets ten services.

* The ban applies only to actually logging into the service - everything can still be viewed when logged out. Users are still being tracked while logged out.

* Reddit (and possibly other services) are complying simply by using heuristics to detect under-16 users - they're not even employing any reliable verification measures.

You can self-host.