hooby

Currently BOTH is being used - peer review is the first pass, reproduction the second.

Peer review might (or might not) weed out a few papers before they ever get to being reproduced - and that a paper "passed" peer review often means very little. (In some journals more, in some less).

You can't replace peer review with peer replication. Reviewers often do volunteer work - supporting their field and the journal by checking submissions just for any grave errors/mistakes. They often spend just 10 to 15 minutes per submission - for hundreds of submissions. It's not realistic to ask those reviewers to do a full replication attempt for hundreds of submissions.

So any attempt to "replace" review with replication, would end up basically removing review altogether, without increasing the amount of replication attempts being made.

This isn't going to be very helpful to you, so sorry for that...

But for me, the hardest parts of getting started as a self-taught programmer, was copying TurboPascal onto floppy discs without the teacher noticing, and retyping code-listings from books borrowed from the library.

Twitter truly wants to become our X social media network. Maybe we should just stop calling it.

I can't speak for anyone else besides myself, so I can't answer the question "what is HNs obsession".

But I can share my thoughts on NoScript:

An ad-blocker acts as a blacklist of sites/domains which are not allowed to run JavaScript in your browser. So basically everything is allowed by default - and the plugin downloads a list of known sites/domains that serve ads, track you, serve malware etc. That list is curated by someone else - and with the goal of disabling as many ads as possible while breaking as little site functionality as possible.

NoScript allows you to manage a whitelist of sites/domains which are allowed to run JavaScript in your browser. So by default everything is forbidden - and only sites/domains explicitly added to that list can run JS. And you have to curate that list yourself - so it's up to you to add sites/domains to those you want to trust permanently/temporarily. This is more involved, requires more effort, and many sites will break - loosing legit features, sometimes even breaking static content.

So, there are some parallels in there - one is a general blacklist that's remotely managed for you - and the other is a whitelist that you have to manage on your own.

You get more control and more security - at the cost of increased hassle, as many sites will just be broken out of the gate, and some will still be broken even after you (temporarily) allow first-party scripts a CDN or two. Some less recommendable sites need JS from 20+ domains (some of which dynamically load in even more domains) to work, while other sites work perfectly fine with just first-party scripts allowed and nothing else. For me that's interesting to know.

But you also get to see and learn a lot about what's going on under the hood, which might be interesting too, if you work in the field.

It's up to everyone to decide for themselves, whether that's worth the hassle - for most people it's probably not. But if you are technically minded and have already gained a little bit of experience with NoScript - the hassle isn't actually that great.

All pages you use regularly will be permanently whitelisted - many other pages can deliver you their static content fine even without JS - lots of pages are pretty easy to whitelist temporarily in just a few clicks - and the rest are often best to stay away from anyway.

I'm pretty sure that most medieval laborers were not aware of that scientific literature ;)

Seems more than just a bit ironic to block the web from being used on the very same open source that it actually runs on...

Life was harsh, lots of work was physically taxing (no machines to do the heavy lifting), and there was not much in terms of relief for any sort of chronic or recurring pain, like back pain, tooth aches etc. Alcohol helps endure, as it made you more numb to such pains. It might also help you sleep at night, when otherwise your aching body might have kept you awake.

In some physical jobs like the construction business, workers used to rely on alcohol to make through the work day until very recently. In some countries they might even still do so.

I can confirm from my own experience building a house and doing heavy lifting on the construction site, that after 10 hours of taxing work, an evening beer works wonders to relax your strained muscles and regain some feeling of comfort.

It's no surprise to me, that the reduction in alcohol consumption coincides with a switch from more hard physical labor, to more sitting jobs.

> Backwards compatibility is one of Microsoft's strengths but with IE it became a weakness for them.

I know that Microsoft in general puts a lot of thought and resources into backwards compatibility.

But the thing is, with IE, I never felt it.

Back in the day, whenever a new version of IE came out, so much stuff would break, and the whole company would scramble to get everything fixed and compatible again - and getting things to work on multiple versions of IE simultaneously (and flawlessly) was such a pain.

We never had any similar problems with Firefox or Chrome... those updates never hurt as much. IE was the only browser, where new versions would cause all-hands-on-deck meetings...

I know there's more history to webkit, but that didn't really seem relevant to the rise and decline of IE... I glossed over it for the sake of brevity. (And yes I know, I still failed to keep it brief, despite that).

As for the decision to do a rewrite - sure Microsoft put pressure on Netscape, and that did influence their decision, and sure Microsoft might have killed off Netscape anyway - but the rewrite still was Netscape's own decision, and it was also Netscape who failed to pull it off successfully.

"still the *same* render engine" is poor wording on my part. Of course they overhauled/reworked things, dropped support for ActiveX and a lot of backwards compatibility stuff. So it probably would be more accurate to say it's a fork of the old engine.

That edgeHTML starts at version 12.0 is a hint for being a continuation of that lineage - but there's also a few bugs/idiosyncrasies edgeHTML has inherited from Trident.

I remember that edgeHTML did spoof the user agent so browsers would not detect it as IE, and would not apply IE specific hacks and polyfills. And that would cause problems with some web apps, that could be fixed by re-enabling a select few hacks/polyfills.

It's been a long time ago, so I don't remember what specifically it was... sorry.

There's many company-intern intranet applications still in use out there, which rely on old IE features like ActiveX and whatnot. Afaik, older versions of .NET came with features that required IE.

Also Asia always was and to my knowledge still is using a lot of IE - not sure about the reason why.

A little history lesson:

* Netscape wanted to dominate the web, gain a monopoly and gain full control.

* IE came late to the party - long after Netscape was already established

* MS invested a *ton* of resources to catch up, rapid development pace, quick updates, constantly new features and improvements

* MS too wanted dominance and full control of the web

* MS gained marked share through "dirty tricks" leveraging their OS dominance

* MS got repeatedly sued for unfair competition, paid large sums, paid lip-service to the courts but never truly changed their strategy

* that hurt Netscape but didn't kill it

* what killed off Netscape was their own doing: a costly code rewrite, that took way to much time and delivered subpar results

* Microsoft won, they had what they wanted: full control of the web, and the power to shape it however they saw fit

* they did nothing. they just stuck with IE6, no new features or improvements for years, even bugfixes and security fixes became really slow. all momentum was lost.

* Firefox rose from the ashes of Netscape - MS still did nothing.

* Firefox gained significant market share - that finally kicked MS into gear

* MS re-started updating and improving IE - but they were technologically behind and had to play catch-up again

* Chrome entered the ring and boosted the pace of development

* IE never fully caught up

* Chrome gained full dominance of the market - but unlike IE did not slow down development

* MS tried all their dirty tricks again - but they still continued to loose market share

* they rebranded IE to Edge (still using the same render engine, but dropping backwards compatibility)

* they dropped their own render engine, and switched to using webkit

* despite even more dirty tricks, no breakthrough success in terms of market share

I believe the fading of IE pretty much started with Microsoft resting on their (un-earned) laurels, after Netscape died. And yes, that's even before IE peaked - while they still had upwards momentum.

It would be really bad if everyone used Firefox - just as it would be very bad if everyone used Chrome (or even any other browser based on the same rendering engine).

We all absolutely do benefit greatly from having multiple competing browsers and render engines - regardless of which one we individually prefer to use.

Therefore I really don't understand the many, many, many "my-browser-is-better-than-yours-you-should-switch" comments in this thread here. Why's everyone trying to convince everyone else that they should use the one and only "best" browser too? What for?

Are people truly that desperate for confirmation and validation, that they need others to agree on their choice of browser?

Afaik you still cannot uninstall:

* Internet Explorer

* Edge Legacy

* New Edge

so, yes there's now effectively three browsers that you can't get rid off.

You can install a different browser, and make that other browser your default browser - but certain Microsoft apps will ignore that default browser choice, and open links in Edge anyway.

Apart from that, depending on your region and version of Windows, you might get bugged about making Edge your default browser, or switching to Edge during some Windows Updates.

The login screen on Windows is still a veiled advertisement for Bing search, which too opens in Edge.

There's nothing I can't find with Google.

If I do scroll through the search results, select a few promising ones, wait for the page to load (slowed down by multiple fat ads), click away the cookie warnings, reject the GDPR consent, disagree with the newsletter popup,switch to reader mode to remove the visual clutter, scroll down the page skimming the content for the right paragraphs... then I will eventually get the same information, that ChatGPT could just have provided me instantly without all the hustle.

You are totally right.

Google makes billions from advertisers - the companies who pay for ads, the companies who create those SEO-optimized marketing-pages. Those are the target audience, that Google wants to make happy.

Why would they care about us users? We don't pay for search.

I feel that Google search has been slowly dying for many years now.

Where in the past I could find documentation, forum-posts, wikis - concise information - these days I find SEO-optimised marketing fluff, link-farms, clickbait, long-form articles with thousands of words that ultimately say nothing, political tirades that don't make sense for any non-U.S.-citizen, and ads - tons and tons of ads.

It would seem that it was Google ads and Google search's own algorithm - which directly led to this state of affairs.

And that's the main reason why asking some LLM for answers is so much more attractive than using search: the AI cuts through all that crap, and extracts the actual information. If it's not hallucinating, that is.

The web is no longer for humans or for finding information. It's for bots, crawlers, for the Google algorithm and for marketing.

Humans simply can no longer digest it - we need AI to generate something more concise, more to the point, more digestible. Without the marketing, fluff and bait and filler.

In my previous company we had - back in the day - a newly hired junior developer that fully subscribed to that particular XML hype.

We had our uses for XML - we liked it especially for API endpoints and import/export files we exchanged with third party companies. Reason being, you could create a Schema Definition, send it to the other company, and tell them not to bother you, until their data validated against that XSD. We used XML for stuff like that extensively.

But that one junior was like "You are using databases? How silly of you! Just use an XML file and x-path. There's nothing a database can do, that XML can't! You really should switch over your production frontend to xml immediately!"

We gave him a little side project and allowed him to write that using xml instead of a database, which he did. When his results turned out to be pretty much unusable, and did not convince us to switch everything to xml, he left the company to find a more "modern" workplace...

To this day I'm not sure if he actually truly believed that xml/xpath would soon replace all databases - or if he just didn't want to learn SQL (and hide the fact that he was pretty bad at it).

The issue was, that a small font sizes and default print quality settings, the caching mechanism would consider some digits like 0 and 8 to be similar enough, to use the cache - which would end up switching numbers around.

This finding did completely invalidate the financial book keeping and backup of tax records of many companies.

I sure hope nobody uses the Samsung camera app to file their taxes and keep their books...

> MS-EdgeExplorer

I propose the name: "Internet Edgeplorer" ;)

Well, most people would not accept the generous offer from the African prince, just because he wrote them an email.

And not everyone would buy everything some market crier advertises to them - or order anything that's hyped on some shopping channel.

And hopefully not too many would not fall for those scam calls, were the caller claims to be from Microsoft and to need their help (and password) to fix a Virus on their Computer.

And not everyone will just blindly agree to every single upsell that any company offers them.

Most people are kind of conditioned to be at least somewhat suspicious of anyone trying very hard to convince them of something.

I don't know if it's correct to call that a "disorder", kinda implying that this is the "abnormal" behavior - and also implying that agreeing and accepting all of the above is what a "normal" person (with no disorder) would do.

But would your parents switch to Edge/Bing on their own - or would they ask for your help, to do that for them?

Is that really the sort of audience that would actually switch to Edge, if whoever maintains their computer for them has setup a different browser as default?

What you are saying is that your parents would NOT detect this as a manipulation attempt. And my post above says that when people DO detect the attempt, the natural response would be to resist it.

But Microsoft is not exactly subtle in their attempts - and that means more people will be able to detect it, right?

I lack the psychology knowledge to know for sure - but isn't it quite normal psychological behavior to go into full rejection-mode, if someone tries to push something down your throat too hard?

Nobody likes being manipulated - and if the manipulation attempts are too obvious and shameless - wouldn't people reject whatever is being pushed at them, just to assert their independence and self-determination?

Even if the product being pushed at them might otherwise be something they'd want to take a closer look at?

For me personally, Microsofts' behavior is definitely pushing me further away from trying or using Edge. Just hearing the word "Edge" creates negative emotions for me - simply because of many years of getting it inappropriately shoved into my face. The first thought that goes through my mind, when I see "Edge" or "Bing" mentioned anywhere in Windows is "Not again. F*k off. Just leave me in peace. Respect my decision to use the browser of MY choice."

As Microsoft is continuing to be so pushy, aren't more and more people going to end up being immediately annoyed just at the bare mention of Edge or Bing?

To me personally, Jira was the best tool I've used so far (used a few of them, but not very many).

But I still was not too happy with it back when I used it - main reasons being extremely slow load times (we had the cloud version, not self-hosted) - and lots of annoying inconsistencies, like "create issue" using a completely different editor than "edit issue", etc.

It really gripes me, that everyone is saying THE metaverse.

It's not THE metaverse, when there are multiple competing metaverses - it's just A metaverse then. Facebook/Meta is trying/failing to build A metaverse (and it's even debateable if what they are building qualifies as a metaverse) - and so are those other companies.

You only get THE metaverse, when there is only one. THE internet qualifies for that THE moniker, because it's one big, open, interoperable thing built on shared standards - not owned by any single company, and no matter what browser/device/ISP you are using, you get access to the same whole.

> It’s just the word metaverse that has become toxic. So why are we still using it? Phrases like virtual worlds or immersive worlds convey the same meaning but lack the stigma of the original term. > And these are arguably better descriptors. According to one 2022 study of U.S. consumers, only 16% of people understand and can explain the metaverse. By contrast, anyone can understand the meaning of “virtual world.” You don’t really need to explain anything. For most tech-literate people, they get it.

I politely disagree. The metaverse is not (just) a virtual world. It's not just "the internet in VR" either.

A virtual world is just a single "verse". Only once you have many (connected) virtual worlds, you get a "multiverse". They key here is, that you can travel between these different virtual worlds, using one single avatar, one single client - and should be able to carry certain attributes and items with you, from one virtual world to the other.

To turn a "multiverse" into a "metaverse" you need to add in the real world as well. There has to be some amount of connection between those virtual worlds and the real world, with both sides influencing each other.

Just like the internet allows you to use one single browser (of your choice) to visit all kinds of different sites, connected through links. And using social logins, you are able to carry your identity (your user account) with you across multiple different sites. Combine that with the interoperability of email, where no matter what email client and email provider you use, you can send email from any server to any other server - no matter who operates them. And all of that you can do from your PC, your phone or from inside VR... And you can use it to order stuff on Amazon, order Pizza, unlock the front door of your house or turn up the heating, buy tickets to real events, or even use google maps and street-view (technically a "mirrorverse") to virtually go sight-seeing on real places across the world.

Combine all that stuff - the multi-platform-ness, the multi-provider-ness, the interoperability, the open-ness, the many virtual worlds combined with the real world - and only then are you getting close to what a metaverse would be.

And before you think that sounds awesome - also consider what an absolute privacy nightmare that would be.

A law of physics or nature, is something that HAS to be that way, and could not be different.

I think it's worth mentioning, that "Moore's Law" is not actually a "law". It's just an observation of a historical trend.

Moore posited in 1965 that the the amount of transistor per chip will roughly double every year - something he himself called "a wild extrapolation" in a later interview.

Actual development speed proved slower than that, so in 1975 he revised his prediction to transistors doubling every two years - so, the original "Moore's Law" was already dead by then. The second revision of his prediction proved more long-lived, in part because manufacturers were actively planning their development and releases around fulfilling that expectation - making it sorta a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There was another slow down in 2010 though - with actual development falling behind "schedule" since then.

But neither the "doubling" - nor the "year" or "two years" were ever anywhere near precise to begin with, so the question "is it dead" depends highly on how much leeway you are willing to give.

If you demand strict doubling every year - that's been dead since before 1975.

If you demand roughly doubling every two years - that's probably mostly dead since 2010.

If you allow for basically exponential growth but with a tiny bit of slow down over time - then it's still alive and well.

There can be no precise answer to the question - since the whole prediction was so imprecise to begin with. I don't think there's any benefit to getting hung up on drawing a supposedly precise line in the sand...

> Microsoft announced a report indicating that workers were indeed productive at home (and sometimes more so), just that managers were failing to have confidence in workers.

Maybe it's down to management style.

It's long known that (at least in somewhat creative and self-directed jobs) workers who are motivated and happy with their jobs are more productive than those who are not. Managers then have to work hard, to keep motivation up and people happy. Let's call this the "supportive" management style.

It's also known that frustrated, unhappy workers are more likely to skip as much work as they can get away with, and do only as much as they are forced/required to do. Managers than have to work hard to control and monitor everyone, to keep the slack to a minimum. Let's call this the "adversarial" management style.

In one of those styles, WFH employees can be more productive, more happy, and more efficient. In the other, WFH employees can't be monitored closely enough to keep them from slacking.

Some managers prefer one style over the other, and not many are able to switch styles.

This might be the first time I ever thoroughly enjoyed watching a soccer match.

Maybe I'd enjoy real soccer more as well, if the players just sometimes randomly face-planted onto the field!

Dune Part 1 has a runtime of 2h 35minutes. Assuming that Part 2 has a similar runtime, we end up with 5h of film total.

The miniseries "Frank Herbert's Dune (2000)" in the extended directors cut - has a total runtime of 4h 55 minutes. So very similar in length to the movie.

The miniseries "Frank Herbert's Children of Dune (2003)" has a runtime of 4h 25minutes. So, shorter than the new movie (similar to the regular cut of the first miniseries).

So, it would seem that your typical miniseries has actually less time to work with, than a 2-Part movie...