sovok_x

Irrespective if it's a random thing, it still gives valuable insight into possibilities and crowd psychology.

I have an impression that they force at least part of those "UI upgrades", to the point of removing their switch in about:config, specifically to annoy users and to create waves pushing their product into some news while showing off some work being done. There is no such thing as negative marketing or so people say.

Personally, I found almost none of those as useful as to justify the repeatedly broken web-surfing experience and ever-growing userChrome.css.

As I see it, many problems like those described come from the lack of adequate and properly filtered bi-directional feedback loops both positive and negative between users and the algorithmic decision makers as most of the companies turn feedback system to ether critical situation dump, some sort of primitive and one-sided meritocratic society, rating hell or uselessness quagmire chat plug.

Yeah, you learn _any_ language that much faster if you have a solid motivation, both external and internal, to do so. And if the language is _availible_ enough, meaning it has a lot of help, examples and 3rd party libraries, going for practicality or fun&profit projects really helps.

Then again switching programming paradigms not so easy, but when you can...

That depends on purpose of the teaching. If you want to teach them basics what the thread starter mentioned is enough. If you want the deeper understanding you should teach them how it boils down to machine code or add a bit of Assembly to the menu. It explains pointers and other such things pretty well.

If you can do without folders/issues/actions/etc gists already provide this functionality, as they can be accessed like usual git repositories while allowing private visibility with sharing by their exact link.

I tried something similar and it works to a degree.

There are two cons though: connector reliability on the disk and especially on the docking device degrades with time and you need to care about backups more as you can damage the drive during the transportation with mechanical hit or with static electricity.

Making big revenue and having best teams doesn't mean they do everything most efficiently and don't ever go the way of the lowest friction. I am really curious whether someone really tested it and found it unfeasible from a technical or psychological standpoint. The autoplay stuff I clearly understand but the recommendations' - don't.

And youtube knows exactly what videos they re-watch often enough so it can clearly mind this stuff, plus they will probably use the search if they want to re-watch something specific anyway. It is no reason to re-recommend every one of those including explicitly uninteresting.

Or am I missing some research that shown novelty less effective at driving the clicks here?

That doesn't really explain why they re-recommend previously acted-on videos though. You won't watch them anyway so they basically eat screenspace that can be used for some novel videos with ads that you will watch with a higher probability, there is no real lack of those now.

Maybe there are some differences between offline and online compute like page response times, cluster specifics, database latency etc. There are no hard timing or effectiveness requirements for processing videos after all.

Yeah, they probably just plain economize on compute there.

I think there can be some additions:

1) for user to be able to manage those percentages directly or using various pre-made profiles and maybe allow some randomness mixed in;

and

2) "exploraton mode" where topics with content that is "disliked but not conflicting with the core values", "disliked but they may try to convince me here" and "initially neutral, unknown or not entirely irrelevant to them" are suggested.

I also think that attempting to extract the core values as hidden variables and using them to predict, or guess from oher users and external news, the future direction of their evolution can also be useful.

And mixes it with misinformation somehow too so the argument is all over the place.

Just make draft versions without much effort involved to test the waters.

Nobody actually know what they really want before they see it.

The article isn't clear enough for me but upvoted anyway.

I believe problems of IPv4 are related more to IoT than end-users currently. There is not much urgency for humans to switch within ~3.7 billions of IPv4 addresses unless all of humanity will suddenly decide to own a web-site with unique IP or a dedicated IP from their ISP.

But there is an enormous number of devices being connected. This also brings the more important aspects of IPv6 to the front: its increased security, extensibility and performance. IPv4 is very old and wasn't designed for the modern world, it uses crutches to adapt.

So the answer to your question "when will its lifespan end" depends on how fast will new IoT-devices saturate the market. It can be a few decades or a few years, only prophets know. Overall it's not a fast process but it's better be ready for the transition than not.

I don't have enough F-words to explain how I feel about the new address bar.

@Mozilla: Can you at least not remove about:config entries to disable it, in the later releases, please.

I would be glad to switch, but I am sucker for good UI. I can even forgive some lost functionality for it. Most alternatives were not to my liking.

Personally I most dislike forced deanonymization with 2fa or annoying me with device verification which locked me out of my anonymous account with old expired email (I didn't need it secured and I don't want to prove anything to MS to restore it too). Some people also reported increasing external CI services throttling in favor of Actions, I wouldn't be surprised if they give preferential treatment to Packages too. In the end I don't want power of MS over my code and workflow to grow too much. I know they claim Github is independent but it's not really reassuring.

Its mobile UI is broken all over on my system. But I am all in for getting inspired by exact Github UX/UI. They're the main reason I don't want to switch to alternatives even if I hate Github after MS-merger and following "improvements of the service".

Maybe Internet access do need to be made into a basic human right after all.

See https://phys.org/news/2019-11-free-internet-access-basic-hum... for another example why.

The filter is applied to entire content of a given tag and its subtags, here is the example for HN (has-text must be site-specific):

    news.ycombinator.com##.itemlist .athing:not(.comtr):has-text(/corona|covid|\bsars\b|(?:epi|pan)demi|virus|death|social distanc|\bICU\b|wuhan|quarantin/i)+*
    news.ycombinator.com##.itemlist .athing:not(.comtr):has-text(/corona|covid|\bsars\b|(?:epi|pan)demi|virus|death|social distanc|\bICU\b|wuhan|quarantin/i)

The sudden idea is to separate metadata and content on different services and merge them only for viewing and interaction. Then users can selfhost content and request its distributed social metadata (upvotes, emotes, other people's comments etc) dynamically without easily losing control over the content itself.

Textual data and exchanges are often self-describing. They're easier to debug and monitor visually. Try debugging or reverse-engineering binary exchange with some obscure proprietary protocol to see why this matters.

In the end it is more about human convenience on the highest levels of OSI and less about transfer efficiency.

Usual ML models take static slices of data and process them. Human brain, on the order hand, used to work with dynamic data, even within a single perceptual frame, and timing of events is a major variable there. No surprise that those ML models or what they call AIs are so bad at causality: they operate in different mode.

I wonder if there were ever attempts to replace reviews with questionnaires with some motivation to fill them like points or micro-discounts. It should provide more standardized flow and force users to disclose more about their experience.

I am curious why nobody does this, do I miss some obvious disadvantage?

I wouldn't be surprised if this has something to do with gut microbiota.

Make different priorities of reading based on what your real-life priorities are. Some things you'd better read right this moment and some things when nothing better to do, if ever. Don't fear removing marginally useful articles from your reading list: no one can read everything.

To simplify this approach skim over articles you have without reading too deep and decide what seems important: better reads tend to attract attention.

In short: use unsupervised AIs and algorithms to generate metadata because humans suck at it.