brisk

joined 2 years ago
[–] brisk@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago

Certainly for all. I was mostly thinking in terms of e.g. languages that (can) compile to LLVM, since you have the intermediate form already defined. But then languages layer quite a lot on top of LLVM in terms of abstractions and safety constraints that make it probably a bad intermediary even for that subset. Even just for one language, there must be something ~~fun~~useful that can be done just by viewing the same code with different syntaxes.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago

This also reminds me of the spatial computing project DynamicLand

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that "programming sucks" but there are some neat thoughts and tools in there.

This bit in particular:

We don't even have to give up code! The GUI version of a program could merely be one of several human-editable representations. Just as some people love text-based interfaces to their operating systems, some people will continue to enjoy code-based interfaces to software editing. It just doesn't have to be the default—or the only—option anymore.

I've often thought about the idea that to an extent a programming syntax does not have to be married to a language. We could potentially have editors and syntaxes designed so that each developer can interact with the code in the syntax they're most comfortable with, independent of the language. I don't know how realisable this is, it may be underestimating how tightly coupled syntax and language is.

I'm not a big fan of graphical programming in general, but there are times when I would like it just for a single function or class, for signal processing or control systems or state machines. I usually think of this in terms of editor plugins or external code gen tools rather than whole environments. Although every code gen tool I've used to date sucks.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 15 points 1 week ago

If the US would pass a law shielding companies from lawsuits related to donated food, then this could become the norm

Well good news then! That law is set to be passed in just thirty years ago

This idea is a myth used to excuse immoral behaviour.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I've never encountered this. Wikipedia only mentions sugar under "varieties: US", so you should be good if you want to claim the international version.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 8 points 3 weeks ago
[–] brisk@aussie.zone 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Super is for my window manager.

Which I guess is kind of where copy paste live so I'm on board, barring semantic nitpicks

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Currently "older cards" is GTX 10xx series and earlier

This is a deliberate choice made by Nvidia with respect to their proprietary drivers, and has nothing to do with the operating system.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 141 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Fun fact! The current dismal state of scientific publishing is largely attributable to Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine Maxwell.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 6 points 2 months ago

The story is available in it's entirety here

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

First past the post inherently reinforcers a two party system as voting for a third party benefits the parties that you least want. That's the spoiler effect.

Approval voting doesn't have that problem, so alternatives can actually show up and be viable.

RCV (actually IRV) has less of a spoiler effect than FPTP but it still has a substantial "centre squeeze" effect as moderate candidates


with broad support but few first preference votes


get eliminated early.

There are much better voting systems that actually attempt to identify the Condorcet winner. The only advantage AV or IRV have over Condorcet methods is simplicity

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Definitely regional in Australia. Drinking fountain gang here.

 

If you’ve been around, you might’ve noticed that our relationships with programs have changed.

Older programs were all about what you need: you can do this, that, whatever you want, just let me know. You were in control, you were giving orders, and programs obeyed.

But recently (a decade, more or less), this relationship has subtly changed. Newer programs (which are called apps now, yes, I know) started to want things from you.

 

There is an ongoing trend in the industry to move people away from username and password towards passkeys. The intentions here are good, and I would assume that this has a significant net benefit for the average consumer. At the same time, the underlying standard has some peculiarities. These enable behaviors by large corporations, employers, and governments that are worth thinking about.

 
 

Ring founder Jamie Siminoff is back at the helm of the surveillance doorbell company, and with him is the surveillance-first-privacy-last approach that made Ring one of the most maligned tech devices. Not only is the company reintroducing new versions of old features which would allow police to request footage directly from Ring users, it is also introducing a new feature that would allow police to request live-stream access to people’s home security devices.

 

The GSM Association announced that the latest RCS standard includes E2EE based on the Messaging Layer Security (MLS) protocol, enabling interoperable encryption between different platform providers for the first time.

 

Highlights:

Krishnan told Ars that "Meta is trying to have it both ways, but its assertion that Unfollow Everything 2.0 would violate its terms effectively concedes that Zuckerman faces what the company says he does not—a real threat of legal action."

For users wanting to take a break from endless scrolling, it could potentially meaningfully impact mental health—eliminating temptation to scroll content they did not choose to see, while allowing them to remain connected to their networks and still able to visit individual pages to access content they want to see.

According to Meta, its terms of use prohibit automated access to users' personal information not just by third parties but by individual users, as a means of protecting user privacy. Meta urged the court to reject Zuckerman's claim that Meta's terms violate California privacy laws by making it hard for users to control their data. Instead, Meta said the court should agree with a prior court that "rejected the argument that California law 'espous[es] a principle of user control of data sufficient to invalidate' Facebook’s prohibition on automated access."

Much more in article

 

Verge editor laments the perverse incentives of SEO rankings.

 
view more: next ›