err4nt

I concur, I've been 'around' the OSS community even before I had skills to be able to give back to it and something after 2010 shifted and it felt like open-source was a way for corporations to exploit free labour of ideologues they could sell a daydream to. The promise of fame or getting hired, etc drove some young people who bought the lie to give up everything. I even knew a guy who only stopped when he was homeless and spending all his time on library computers trying to respond to people.

Open source is a gift given by whoever wants, and it's amazing to be in a place in life when you can give if you want to, but it's all 'bonus'.

For a number of years, I built various To-Do (or more accurately To-Done) lists. I would use them for about a year and then just stop, and make something else. I don't currently have any to-do list solution, I'm just using pieces of paper or forgetting stuff. At one point I had:

- A single-page HTML app that saved entries in localStorage in 1 browser (like 1kb of vanilla CSS and JS, barely anything)

- A static HTML website, generated from a folder of Markdown-like raw text, with a CLI build script. Hosted on a public web server.

- A simple linux CLI command that let me check, set, and mark items as complete, build with Node and saved to a JSON on disk somewhere.

And there must have been one or two more. Nothing serious, nothing that stuck long-term, but I probably spent 1-10 hours making these, and then using them daily for a year or a year and a half.

I'm very conscious about time spent automating or building what you want, versus how much real-life time savings or experience boost does it give you. I'll likely make more of these in the future when the itch reappears and hopefully get another year's enjoyment out of whatever little thing I build.

I thought it would be dense, but it was lighthearted and didn't take itself too seriously, and both shared information and fun questions to ask. I enjoyed the speculation which had not even a shred of political or social agenda anywhere in sight. Just pure fun.

If there was a code editor that _actually_ supported the HTML language as it's specified, and allowed you to select by element in the editor as well - that would be amazing.

Right now the problem I have is that text that's been marked up as HTML suddenly then becomes harder to wrangle around than it was to put it into HTML in the first place.

I want an editor where I can "select all <p>" or "search and replace all <h2> tag names with <h1> tag names while leaving attributes intact" and other ways of reasoning about HTML as HTML in my editor.

It doesn't appear to be true if you check websites of Canadian banks (e.g. CIBC, RBC, BMO, Scotia…) they all offer Visa and Mastercard, and Scotia even also offers Amex as well.

Bible !== christianity, or any of those things you listed. It's the best-preserved-most-ancient library of texts that have been continually read daily by at least someone ever since they were produced, and have had a huge impact on western thought and civilization, conceptions of morality, justice, duty, separation between authority and religion within society, etc. And it does all of that while being shared between many religions.

Is it? I hope so, because this is a fantastic translation, it preserves as much of the wordplay from the hebrew, and whatever is not able to be brought through in the translation is well-annotated in the notes below.

Are they bluetooth, or can real Switch controllers be connected to a smartphone?

Here I am worried that my cat is going to knock my flat lightweight TV over one of these days, and you had a 300 lb TV? That sounds like what I need now!

I'm Canadian and I don't think this makes sense at all. Netflix (etc) isn't a TV station or a radio station broadcasting cultural programming on the airwaves, it's a self-serve library of digital content you pay to access for as long as you want to have access to whatever you choose to access. What makes that so different from a bookstore or membership-based physical library?

It just occurred to me - we only call these 'invasive' not because they invade nature, but because they invade the spaces we as humans have carved into nature. If our presence wasn't there, perhaps the natural ecosystem wouldn't have space or room for some of these species to enter, but because of human activity, a space is carved out for these other species to grow in, and that's what causes us the stress.

Isn't it weird how we're so acutely aware of the effect of the species that invade our space, but so ignorant so often of our effect on the same spaces when we invade them?

I think I learned something valuable today chewing on this article.

For a while, about fifteen years ago they had a string of popular songs that were so formulaic in their songwriting that you can play them over top of each other (trimming off intro/outro) and it's the same song, here's the maskup "How you Remind Me, of Someday" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeqTvxXWwuY

So it's not that they're a bad band, or bad at writing songs, we just got tired of that one formula and they kept doing it as long as it made them money.

I think what you're calling "my way" is just what HTML is designed to be in its own specification. Custom elements have been in the spec for over a decade and are supported everywhere, they're as legit as any other part of standard HTML.

Perhaps compare this film on glass to other frosted glass methods which likely reduce the transmitted light far more.

It's not getting more complex, because the easy stuff you have always been able to do is still there the exact same, as easy as it's always been. There is more of CSS now, so you have more power to express styles for more mediums in better ways, but you only need to use what you want so you don't need to make things complicated at all.

HTML Custom Elements would allow you to define and provide support for your own <table-of-contents> element, so you could use it, and all browsers would understand it, and dev tools and CSS and JavaScript and all other HTML would work fine with it.

There's a saying that web developers I know have been repeating for years: "Friends don't let friends use Firefox"

The people who trust it are the people who either don't know the difference, or the code ChatGPT outputs is comparable or better than what they can output.

It seems to work okay the other direction though, if code is well-named and well-commented, ChatGPT can explain what it does in natural language tailored to people of varying backgrounds and levels of experience. But it's not so good at taking natural language and making it into code that has to be much stricter.

Some ideas: use different editors for different languages, or different color themes. Or another is to format code visually differently, for example when I write HTML I use double quotes, and when I write JavaScript I use single quotes, both are acceptable in both languages, but I feel like it helps keep them separate if I lean different directions within the expression allowed in the languages.

Structually, it's a tree. JSON cannot include circularity (like JavaScript objects can) so it's either an object, or nested objects.

In the past I've used XPath, and CSS selectors using this library to filter and find data in JSON: https://github.com/tomhodgins/espath

The approach is to take the JavaScript object, convert it to XML DOM, run the query (either using standard XPath, or standard CSS selectors) and then either convert the DOM back into objects, or another way I've seen it done is to keep a register of the original objects and retrieve the original objects.

In this way, JSON, and any JavaScript object with non-circularity can be sifted and searched and filtered in reliable ways using already-standardized methods just by using those technologies together in a fun new way.

There is not necessarily a need for inventing a new custom syntax/DSL for querying unless you don't want to make use of CSS and XPath, or have very specific needs.

I think the person is saying there may be a vast difference between what's marketed and promised, and how projects like these have historically under-delivered or failed.

In ancient history these are known as 'execration texts' and we have examples from Egypt going back as far as 4600 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execration_texts

I'm not saying that people should kill others or themselves because of the amounts of money involved here, and I'm not entirely sure what the minimum threshold is for financial crimes where that becomes an (grim and unfortunate) side effect, but when we're discussing the largest fraud in history it's definitely on that scale. Even though he stole money, the human cost of that is beyond just fractured careers and relationships, undoubtedly because of how humans behave people almost certainly lost their entire lives due to the continuing effects caused only by this crime. That cost in human life should be taken into account here, even if it shouldn't have had that kind of cost.

Please seek help from a suicide resource center - they can offer the kinds of help that will make a difference more than people on HN are able to offer.

I see 2 things that are good news here, the first is that you reached out to others for help, speaking purely statistically this is a good indicator that you are a survivor! The second good news is that much of the AI hype you're hearing is embellished for profit. Things feel really bleak because of where your head is at right now, and that can change!

Please go get help from the people waiting to give it to you, you can make it through even this!

As far as I know the rules were set in stone by 2013 or around there so while they haven't been widely taught or have tons of blog posts written about them they are safe and futureproof in that way. From what I understand around the time of the design of the syntax for CSS custom properties (which have '--' a double-dash prefixed to the start of the term) they decided that all author-defined parts of CSS syntax will always begin with a double dash '--', which is like a vendor prefix (e.g. '-webkit-' or '-moz-' etc) but with no vendor.

So if a function in CSS is func(), then a custom author-defined function will always be --func() and it should be parsed and safely ignored by browsers or things that don't understand it, but still present in your CSS for tools to read and operate on so you can define custom features and use them within standard CSS no matter how or where you are providing the support (you could process some things in advance like a preprocessor, or it might be a feature that only makes sense to support client-side in a browser or at the time the CSS is being evaluated).

It's also possible to define custom author-defined features fully within standard CSS syntax, which can then be safely picked up and processed by tools (server side or client-side) and handled without needing a custom language and its own custom syntax. It's a solution that's far, far bigger than the problem it solves.

Some thoughts: Browser developers today can't speak for the way browser makers in the future may build standards-based browsers. Standards provide a level of future-proofing. Also browsers are not the only tools developers will use to interact with HTML. And most importantly, the custom extensibility built-in to the HTML language is supported by all browsers as well.

May I ask: if it's intended to be used with HTML language, why not use legal HTML syntax? (Custom author-defined tag names, custom attributes for those custom tags, and data-* attributes on any element are all legal ways to extend HTML with new attributes)

I'll never understand why people insist on making tools that depend on non-standard/illegal HTML when HTML is perfectly extensible. Authors are free to invent custom tag names (according to some rules) and free to create attributes (according to some rules) but this appears to break those rules and depends on people authoring invalid illegal HTML.

Why can't we extend standards-based languages using the built-in custom extensibility they already have?