dak1

Yes, they really will. If you oppose this initiative, you start running ads:

"Your legislator wants to let a computer overrule judges and juries and put criminals back on the streets. Call your legislator now to tell them you oppose HB-555."

There's enough truth there, that explaining it away takes far too much effort, and in politics, if you're explaining, you're losing. If you don't think this is how this kind of thing works, you haven't been paying attention.

Using the hash for navigation is still quite common, because usage of history pushState requires server support to correctly work on reload.

I’d also argue that SPAs using it for navigation are not abusing it. The purpose is to allow linking to different sections in a document. Navigation is effectively an advanced form of the same concept. It’s just that as you navigate, the DOM happens to mutate to bring the content you linked to into view, instead of just scrolling down to it.

Hash fragments are for page authors to define, not the browser. While this sounds like a useful feature, it’s implementation is simply wrong.

What they really want to do is extend the RFC for URLs to add an additional component. There are already unsafe characters that could be used for this purpose that would be nonbreaking.

For example, add a | at the end of the hash fragment, and anything after that can be for the browser to communicate page state independent of the page author’s intent.

The current proposal, however, should be firmly rejected.

This talks about continuous authentication, which isn’t about accessing a system, but rather flagging unusual behavior for followup inspection.

People don't act on perfect information. In general, what they know is what is personally relevant to them.

Given limited information, we use shortcuts for making decisions, including what we believe to be best for us based on pre-learned models that are shaped by education, our peers, media, and culture in general.

Often, our models our wrong. This can be manifested as racist beliefs and actions, as well as rejection of actual facts, among other outcomes. Of course, the outcome is also entirely possible to be a positive one despite the inputs being inaccurate or incomplete.

Yet, despite our simple models and narrow understanding of the world, we, as a species, have managed to build friendships, communities, and civilizations. We have peered back in time billions of years, learned of our place in the universe, and invented pizza.

It's easy to get focused on all the problems, because that tends to take up most of our focus — but only because we're constantly striving to improve and solve those problems. Sometimes these problems are social, collective action issues, built on incorrect personal models distributed across millions or billions of individuals, and they can take longer to resolve than many of us would like. But, looking at the arc of history, we trend toward progress.

Therefore, I think the correct response to the human condition is one of hope. Of course, this whole experiment that is humanity could end tomorrow or next century due to a nuclear holocaust, GRB, climate change, superbug, or a billion of other existential threats. But until it does, let's marvel at the run we have had, and continue to subscribe to the mass delusion of hope that has served us well so far.

For everyone wondering what this could be useful for, take a look at https://github.com/tensorflow/tfjs-models for a few ideas.

Making apps interactive with poses or with speech commands are two examples that jump out.

6 more years is a really long time on the web. You may want to base it instead on usage metrics — IE, once usage drops below what % are you willing to stop testing against a browser?

Win7 support is ending Jan 2020 also, at which point IE11 will only be supported on Win10 (and it's not default there). So that may be a good date to start considering ending IE11 support as well, especially with Chromium-Edge coming out later this year.

Translation: Foreign competition has now been driven out of business by subsidies, time to raise prices.

Since we all tend to live in bubbles to some extent, do we have any numbers to back this up (like, # of repos/commits in each language on GitHub, or questions on StackOverflow)?

I tend to view TypeScript similar to CoffeeScript — it brings to JavaScript some features from other languages that are convenient and preferred by a subset of frontend developers. It allows for experimentation in the language, and helps inform TC39 proposals.

In time, I suspect support will coalesce around a specific TC39 process proposal to add type support, it will graduate to stage 3 or 4, get integrated into browsers and Babel, and enthusiasm around TypeScript will wane.

Not if you expand what's considered sensitive!

China took the highly unusual step of inviting western media to the man's appeal trial.

Reducing prices almost certainly means reducing profit. Which means now they're in a market that is delivering shrinking revenues and profits.

I'm not sure this changes as much as people keep saying. Microsoft isn't completely abandoning browser development, and it will still have (sometimes strong) opinions on the development of the web.

The conversation though will shift from conversations in external organizations between stakeholders, to conversations in a shared codebase between stakeholders.

In some cases this could be better, as it means we will have fewer occurrences where there's agreement on a feature, but implementation lags in 1 browser. Instead, adoption of many features should now be quicker, while debate about larger or more controversial features will still exist.

There's nothing in the spec that promises you a little "x" to clear the value: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/in...

Chrome also frequently attempts to cover up incorrect code with what it thinks the author probably meant. Firefox tends to be much better than Chrome at following the actual spec.

I tend to develop primarily with Chrome first for some different reasons (ability to disable CORS, support for self-signed certs with WebSockets, and its better debugging of WS frames), but I always make sure to test later with Firefox and Safari, and occasionally find code that worked in Chrome, but doesn't elsewhere, and the reason is almost invariably always that Chrome didn't follow the spec.

I would love to use Firefox more for dev, but until it has a first class way to disable CORS, I can't. "CORS Everywhere" is not sufficient (it alters responses, but does not actually disable CORS, which doesn't cover all needs).

Chrome I can at least disable CORS via the command line, and Safari does it best by putting it in a Developer menu that I can easily toggle.

Firefox's dev tools also seem to still be behind — I haven't seen a good way to inspect WebSocket frames, for instance.

I would really prefer to use Firefox due to Mozzila's stances on privacy, especially in contrast to Google; however, I have to use the tool that lets me actually get work done.

I have a 2 and a half year old son now. My wife and I have found for us that the right answer is simply moderation, variety, and supervision.

1. We moderate how much time is spent on screens. Each day he probably spends a total of an hour or less in front of any screen (iPad/iPhone/Projector).

2. He does watch some (highly filtered) educational YouTube content, but we also make sure he's playing educational and interactive games, like building, drawing, and learning Chinese (we're a bilingual household). He also has lots of books and we read to him actively, he participates in sports, we take him outside to playgrounds and parks, do arts and crafts with him, and he helps us with chores around the house (in a fun way), etc.

3. When he is playing a game or watching a video, we're there participating. We're monitoring and filtering the content he's viewing, and we're actively adding to the educational experience by talking about the things he's seeing and doing with him.

Technology is a tool, and how it's used matters. Outright banning it means we're missing out on its potential benefits, and also we miss the opportunity to teach him from an early age how to use it properly. I fear a child who hasn't learned to cope with technology for 13 years and is then suddenly introduced to it will struggle far more.

It was a little bit of a struggle at first, but now when we tell him it's time to turn off the iPad, he usually will do it himself without fuss, and he increasingly will turn it off without even prompting and move on to another activity like reading or drawing.

I can't help but feel like this is falling into the trap of Goodhart's Law[1]. While granting that the relationship can be somewhat complex and potentially reinforcing, it feels like this is really primarily treating the symptom and not the cause.

This may be a good proxy for gender equality with regard to economic opportunities; however, forcing it to hit a certain threshold merely makes the measure meaningless without appreciably impacting actual gender equality (this only impacts a vanishingly small percentage of the overall population).

I strongly support efforts to increase gender equality, but I also believe they should be evidence-based and ideally on their face gender neutral (for example: banning gender-based discrimination is neutral, even though it would currently be far more beneficial to women than men).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

Where I went to University in upstate New York, there was a Taiwanese tea house run by a Korean family, a Japanese sushi restaurant owned by a Taiwanese family, and a Korean restaurant managed by a Japanese woman.

When I go to a Thai restaurant, I also frequently hear the cooks speaking Mandarin Chinese (I'm conversant in the language).

Part of the idea behind Connexions (and later OpenStax) is that educational resources are made available under a CC license, and tools are provided so that educators can use, combine, re-write, and modify the educational texts they use.

In practice, many choose to use the books as is, as they're already pretty high quality, but if you go to cnx.org and do some searches on the database, you'll find a number of variations that have been created by different professors and universities as well.

I don't think the intent (or resources) is there to give you every book for every course in a pre-selected order.

Disclaimer: I'm a former employee and developer for Connexions and OpenStax CNX, although I haven't been there for several years, so my understanding may be out of date.

cnx.org was the URL used when the organization was called Connexions. It was re-branded a few years ago to reflect its growth and expanded missions. Connexions became OpenStax CNX, within the larger OpenStax organization.

They are all a part of Rice University and based out of Houston, and have been pursuing the goal of providing open education resources since the 1990s.

They're also open source and active on GitHub: https://github.com/Connexions https://github.com/openstax

Source/Disclaimer: I'm a former employee and developer for Connexions and later OpenStax CNX.

Evergreen browsers provide a stable API surface as well, because the APIs are backwards compatible. Adding support for CSS Grid does not break Flexbox or anything else I was already using. It simply gives me another tool.

I'm somewhat heartened that 6 Justices were in agreement that cell records should be protected from warrantless lookups.

Gorsuch appears to have dissented because he disagreed with the rationale of the decision and felt the 4th Amendment protections should be far stronger.

This is a good reminder that defaults should be simple and human readable.

Advanced options should be behind flags for power users, not the other way around.

~100 times the intensity required to kill even the hardiest microorganisms, bad.

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-proxima-centauri-flare-powerfu...

const x = NaN;

x === x; // false

You may be thinking of https://stackoverflow.com/questions/588004/is-floating-point...

  0.1 + 0.2 === 0.3 // false

However, R is not immune to this problem either: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6874867/floating-point-i...

Terry Pratchett would have thoroughly enjoyed that concept.

The US has never recognized the One China policy or China's claim over Taiwan. Instead, the US merely acknowledges China's position.

Of course, as a superpower, you have a little bit more negotiating leverage.

However, China's only been successful at bullying countries into recognizing some of its more absurd positions because it has negotiated on bilateral bases, where in almost every case China holds significantly more relative economic clout.

If the US, the EU, the UK, Canada, Japan, and Australia collectively took a position and agreed to provide support for any country that was individually attacked or sanctioned by China for its position, then you'd probably see a much more restrained policy response from China (although their rhetoric would likely be quite loud).

We've known for years that China's foreign policy has largely consisted of "salami slicing" — pressing hard for small concessions that cumulatively result in dramatic changes to international norms, and in the past states engaging in such behavior have been met with a strong and united international response, but for numerous reasons, the reaction to China still remains quite muted.

This is so common one of Murphy's Laws of Combat Operations is: "No combat ready unit has passed inspection. No inspection ready unit has ever passed combat."

This is a teachable moment for a young student. Let's avoid crucifying them.

We've all made mistakes, most of us were just fortunate enough that it didn't end up as the top link in Hacker News.