laarcnew | comments | discord | tags | ask | show | place | submitlogin

In the previous iteration of my CMS, I tried something like that. Several sections of the site had a hash for their content, and when loading a new link, only the bits that were different would have to be loaded. It turned out that all these elements were different for most pages, and the gains were meaningless, if not negative. I built my own little pre-loading and caching layer in JS, and it even played nice with HTTP cache stuff I think, but even at the most optimal I could get it, it was pointless. So I got that out of my system like 10 years ago and never bothered with it again.

If there's several lists on a page that need to be independently browsed and filtered, fine, but if it's just one list, no. If it's just a blog, no, please!

The tool is here:

Trail of Bits uses this tool. They have a write-up on using it with their DeepState:

I thought this was interesting just because of how pervasive the author claims it is over there with deep effects on the participants. I've known a few people that didn't seem rich because they just dress normal. They knew who they were, though, far as I could tell.



The neat part is that we might be able to quickly filter most of the bullshit studies immediately by just searching for statistical significance. :)

Someone recently reminded me of this essay I did. I kept seeing articles on Schneier's blog and other places talking like conspiracy was a made up concept that required nutballs to believe. Yet, there are provably conspiracies everywhere. By the numbers, conspiring against each other is one of the most common and pervasive things people do. Being that pervasive, it should be a default possibility to investigate as a cause of anything.

The problem kicks in when people aren't checking sources, aren't looking for counterpoints, being selective about presentation, and so on. More a mis- and dis-information problem than conspiracy theory itself being bullshit.

Then, the Bitcoin supports make a counter-argument like this:

After reading it a while, I noticed that Bitcoin and the current financial systems can't be treated as competing in isolation. Bitcoin uses the current financial systems. So, Bitcoin's energy profile is its energy/resource use plus the financial system's. I argued that on Lobsters with Greg Slepak and David Gerard. I also described specifically what would be necessary for Bitcoin to be an isolated system:

David later wrote an article on it, although cited other sources. Least he's getting the info out there. His has tons of extra details about the energy usage along with examples of misleading claims cryptocurrency advocates are using to make excuses for the drawbacks of their protocols:

My scheme was to simply fix the problems in existing systems with proven methods. Change incentives via public-benefit corps and non-profits with charters requiring common good things, banning common bad things, and penalties decided by 3rd-party non-profit with good record. The decentralization benefits can be achieved, a la SWIFT, with centralized operations that interact over standardized protocols. They can both run and check logs using the fastest, cheapest tech available for centralized operations. I gave simple example here:

I shoot RAW exclusively, the renaming to YYYY-MM-DD-HH-MM-SS is handled by Bibble, which at the press of a button it saves the selected images as 16bit (just because why not) TIFF into the output folder, then runs a script on them, which first resizes, sharpens and converts to PNG via ImageMagick, turns the .png into a well compressed JPEG via guetzli, and finally uses jpegtran to turn that into progressive JPEG.

I lose the EXIF stuff in the final image that way, which so far I shrugged off.. but now that I think of it, I think I'll see if I can simply make a second output job thingy, which saves images as JPEG with all metadata, run that first, and then change the script to transfer the EXIF data to the images generated by guetzli.

The record breaking lift itself

This is a nice place to apply formal methods, because it's very clear what purpose they have (to keep the interpreter from miscompiling code and corrupting the kernel) and the benefit is something we all want (if an interpreter runs in kernel, we all want it to be as safe and secure as possible).

ah thank you!


Which virutual machine softare did Terry use?

Part 2:

Well written and very interesting. I totally agree with your thoughts on the shell. As a matter of fact I am thinking of doing a shell integration from a UI experiment of mine and might very well consider using your attempt as a base.

Your work with libnoise seems really interesting as well as readline gets in the way when you are trying to build really small systems.

So based on this it seems that your tarot project is interesting as well. I will try to take a look at it as soon as I have time, which might be a while!!

I found these:

> Known or suspected abuse or neglect of a child must be reported to:

> - local child welfare services (e.g., children’s aid society or child and family services agency), or

> - provincial/territorial social service ministries or departments, or

> - local police

> Reporting Child Abuse in BC

> If a child is in immediate danger, call police (call 9-1-1 or your local police) to intervene and a child protection social worker should be contacted to determine whether the child is in need of protection.

> If you think a child or youth under 19 years of age is being abused or neglected, you have the legal duty to report your concern to a child welfare worker. Phone 1 800 663-9122 at any time of the day or night.

> Your call will be answered by the Provincial Centralized Screening team (PCS) and their primary role is to receive and assess child protection reports and initial requests for ministry service across the province, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Provincial Centralized Screening can be reached at the following numbers: 1-800-663-9122 or 604-660-4927 (Lower Mainland & outside BC).

> Abuse or neglect does not have to be proven for a report to be made. If the professional suspects that maltreatment has occurred, this is sufficient grounds to justify a report. The CPS is responsible for investigating reports and protecting the child.

> Provided that a report is made in good faith, the person who submits it is protected from any legal proceedings. In most jurisdictions there are penalties for those who fail to make a report; usually, this applies to professionals who work with children, such as teachers, early childhood educators, police officers and health care providers. These professionals are expected to have the expertise needed to identify and to report suspected cases. Members of the general public are not legally obligated to report fellow citizens or family members but are encouraged to do so when child maltreatment is suspected.

I think people are starting to get sick of the web. It's become toxic. I've seen a lot of people expressing interest in alternative protocols.

Interesting. It made me think of stuff by Michael Nielsen, until I discovered midway thru the text they're actually collaborators!

Here's another read:

> Tell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learn.

-- Xun Kuang

I also shared the link at HackerNews.

If anybody wants to jump into the discussions, please go to the below link. Thanks!

I don't watch the show. I did find the business analysis interesting. There's obviously some big gaps in what they're saying. The model goes pretty far for a lot of medium to large businesses, though. Even some small ones if you look at owner -> manager -> supervisor(s) -> worker(s). Still a buffer in the middle to exercise control on or blame shift to.

Here was their justification:

Historically, in case yall are interested, Curl was the first attempt I saw at one language to unite various aspects of web development targeted toward front end people:

By author of LOCKSS whose been doing this long time:

That one also addressed endpoint security a bit by using OpenBSD.

I've been laid up with a fever, and I read this today right after finishing "Lying in Wait" by Liz Nugent ( and it made for a piquant pairing. Thank you!

HTML entities should be decoded from the request title button: Fantastic Metropolis » Division by Zero

Remember Appelbaum being called "sociopath, rapist, plagiarist"?

I remember asking on HN about anything that would warrant "plagiarist", the responses were a joke, one and all. I also remember asking who would take up the mantle of delivering the fiery talks calling people out to stop being complict in fucking murder, and the crickets likewise chirped.

The general pattern was people calling him a sociopath, based on hearsay, and excusing their own sociopathic actions they did in the present in full light of day with that.

What a shitshow that was.

Can you imagine someone like Jordan Peterson calling himself a prophet and ever hearing the end of it? Or posting something like

.. if he posted about how "snitches get stitches", that would be fine, surely?

If that didn't came from the approved "side", it wouldn't fucking fly. It's the exact same pattern as with right-wing extremists.

oh, "we can conclude that". [0] People stoke on a mob, with constant, carefully worded appeals, and a wall of silence towards any uncomfortable questions, and then wash their hands of it. I don't care how much of it is stupidity and how much of it is conscious, if it behaves like nazi scum in practice, all the lip service and hair colors don't change a thing. The whole Appelbaum witch hunt was sociopathy on full display, weasel words, group think. That's all it fucking consisted of.

And all that is EVER used is asymmetric violence. Never direct rebuttal without twisting words, or sophistry. Prove me wrong. I'll gladly link the HN discussions I participated in and was treated like that exclusively. You can then say it's because I'm so "abrasive" and "caustic" (I know I am), and I can act surprised that that excuse gets pulled out.

And we both can ignore the people who made better points than me with nothing but politeness and respect, and got shat on, too. Here's someone that struck me as really solid. But the few adults simply didn't have a chance against the piranha mob. I know how I approach it isn't effective, but that's not my fucking job. At least I don't go along. At least I say no, and clearly so. I don't do it well, so I do it a lot.

Anyway, back then, giant swaths of the "tech community" put on an armband and started marching in goosestep, I saw it, and the CCC turned out to lack backbone, too. I mean, I don't give a shit about the circus in North America (you know, Americans having a pecking order based on sexism and racism is a total fucking joke in light of a war of aggression remaining unpunished, it's really cute in a nauseating kind of way -- there, I said it). But that it actually managed to compromise even the CCC, that stinks.

Here's something I saved because it seemed vaguely important:

> Moreover, I'd like to have all the extremist argumentation slapped the fuck down by intellectuals in public. Given the way things are going however, it's as though transparency and public discussion were anathema to those with power to censor.

> I mean, it can't possibly be that some jack-ass white supremacist, trash-ass ISIS goon, or wank-ass Hillary Trumponite, were hard to repudiate -- unless your own wack bullshit depends on similar constructions. Then it's really hard without stabbing yourself in the back.

-- from

But that's the problem, the tactics of sophistry, alienated abstractions and "voting on what is true", and all that, many centers of power need them.

> The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any.

-- Hannah Arendt

To me, t's basically just the other half of pliers. It's the other side of the same coin. Decent normal human beings who can think honestly, or at least are still honestly trying, who fear nobody, and contort for nobody, are getting crushed in between them. "Both" (it's more than two, it's more Java style, with factory factory factories of totalitarian subcultures) "sides" don't have any value, and are arrayed against everything and everyone of value that's left. They use each other as excuses, like, say, Israeli and Palestinian extremists (I'm not saying they're all extremists, but pick some extremists from each side and you will find what I'm talking about). Against normal, pluristic individuals, who cooperate and argue, against anyone who isn't a totalitarian drone of whatever fucking stripe (like it matters!), a consumerist zombie, a slave. I mean, if I'm going to be an arrogant asshole, I might as well go all out and speak my mind fully. Actual thinking, the kind individuals do in their own heads without any extrinsic rewards or punishments (imagine that), and actual debate, which peers do without playing games, without tricks, without deception, without mobs playing tag team, without hooded executioners -- all that is on the way out, and fuck everyone clapping.

The question isn't why I'm "upset", I have mountains of evidence to back it up (that's not supposed to be an argument, it's a request to challenge me) -- the question is, why aren't you. You see, I expect these kind of tactics from racists and sexists and Nazis and whatnot. Such tactics, and the results of them, are the reason why they are to be rejected. It's not like any other group can use them against them and not become them. So I get kinda antsy when self-labeled warriors for progress, rather than regression, adopt them.

I don't judge the correctness of that by how many people agree with it. I judge people who are either lukewarm or wrong by how much I consider it to be correct. I'm open for argument, I don't count people, and if the argument starts with "many people think that", then that's a forfeit right there. You know, like an actually serious adult? Not just a polite lap dog confusing that with maturity as is the American style?

People who don't have that in them, who can't actually defend their position because it's not actually their own, don't like that. They would like to see it removed.

So I don't just disagree, I'm sick and tired of this shit and how it's still festering. It's anti-intellectual, and it's spineless. You make a desert and call it peace, and I'm calling bullshit.


And while I'm at offending people, here's another thing I mean fully: many people today are against sexism or racism in the same way they would have been against Jews under the Nazis. It doesn't spring from empathy and courage, it springs from obedience, wanting to be belong, and wanting to be better than others without having to do anything, just by default, just for not being them.

I hate that with every fiber of my being, and I've been taking it seriously before some of those neo-fascist pseudo-leftist pseudo-intellectuals were even born. Because to me it IS painfully serious and real, I never can forget that in the country I live in, people were dragged from their homes, and smashed and burned and spat on. I will never forget that the actual idea was to not leave a trace of the death camps, that if the war had went differently, they would have rewritten history. Most Germans don't want to be "bothered" by that, I would fear for my soul to forget it even just one second. The ground should open up and eat anyone in Europe who does (including tourists and expats), triply so Germans.

When I was 11, I switched TV channels and saw corpses pushed into a grave by caterpillars. That and other things I chewed on, I will chew on them until I die, nobody can just "comprehend" it. And you cannot even fathom how disappointed I was when I later learned of something like the Vietnam War, and how I felt when I saw the buildup to the Iraq war before my own eyes. I can't live on this planet without struggling with that at every opportunity I have. We live in an utterly, thoroughly, completely fascist age. Arno Gruen was right, we do live in the age of Adolf Hitler. It metastasized, it got cleaned up, it got perfected. It's like fucking microplastics. It learned to smile, too [1][2], though the eyes remain dead as ever, for those with eyes to see.

Just so you know what crawled up my crotch, and why it's so persistent. Stop blaming messengers -- pull your weight, and other people won't be quite as sweaty and exhausted and wild-eyed.

[0] Of course, we cannot conclude that maybe not all Ghostbusters hate was real, that some of it was synthetic to be able to peddle a shoddy movie? Not even with the mockery of "male nerds" in the movie, that was put in it before anyone could react to it, while celebrating "female nerds" without noticing how one side of the mouth isn't quite in line with the other. And no, I don't actually don't want to belittle rape threats, I don't actually disbelieve that. Any and all actual people who do send something like that should go to actual jail. I mean that, too. But again, I'm not getting shamed into fuck all, ever. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, and the double standards are on full display, as are the mob tactics and sophistry used to defend them.



I remember when Gregor Gysi called Max Blumenthal an antisemite, because he simply trusted the Wiesenthal foundation. Gysi doesn't even fucking speak English, he knows nothing about Blumenthal's work. Blumenthal quoted Yeshayahu Leibowitz, he didn't even condone his usage of the word "Judeo-Nazis", he just pointed out that that's how this venerable man put it, and that was "poorly received" by the Wiesenthal foundation, and that's that. Gysi just trusted the database, if you will, and I'm sure he's still convinced he's right.

That's the kind of brownshirt bullshit I won't be shamed into. As a German, I also inherit the responsibility of the knowledge of what it's like to be a Nazi, how Nazis operate -- not just what it's like to be a victim of Nazis, or how the popular hack fraud versions of history that focus on the differences between that and what we do, while skirting around the utterly gross similarities. I don't like what I'm seeing, and I don't say "brownshirts" to be polemic. I mean it. Not "literally", but seriously.

One measure for all, how about that? Either rape threats are just a result of being "poorly received", or votes and bans and whatnot are also not automatically correct. Either might is right, or it's not.

Another anecdote, when BLM was in everybody's mouth, I was a bit dismayed by some aspects, but generally supportive, so I followed one of the figureheads, Marissa Jenae. Next thing I know she posts this on her Facebook:

> "But a prophet is not a prophet til they ask this question:

> When shit hits the fan, is you still a fan?

> When shit hits the fan, is you still a fan?"

> Many have called me a prophet. Three things are true about all prophets:

> --They are under obligation, by God, to speak truth...all while knowing it will not be received or understood

> --Their work, by nature is divisive and matter where they land, all people must respond to a prophet's words.

> --A prophet is never excepted in their hometown (place of worship).

> sigh

When I saw that, I shared the post and mocked it. I couldn't believe it, and frankly, it gave me goosebumps, the bad kind. What do you think happened to my social signal, was it received? Of course not, she blocked me, probably proudly so.

The shit we're seeing now, and the shoddy justifications for it, have been quite a while in the making.

More Camille Paglia, less victim cults with armbands.

> On Reddit, if something hateful gets posted (and it isn’t in a toxic subreddit) others will indicate disapproval by voting it down, like the opposite of the Twitter favorite button.

And with the exact same mechanism, falsehoods are spread, and questioning them is punished.

> So if a comment has a hugely negative score, it’s clear to everyone that the community strongly disapproves of it. Even though the points have no functional effect beyond de-emphasizing and hiding the post, it’s an indicator that attracts scorn and causes shame.

For brownshirts that would be the sole signal, yes. Anyone else would take the context into account.

> One cannot receive beatings and be right, one cannot be dirty, eat garbage and be right.

-- Robert Antelme, "The human race"

I can also means "this many people disagree but can offer no argument, and are seeking to silence". Reddit removing individual counts for upvotes and downvotes is supposed to hide those who disagree with the majority, "winner takes all". It's disgusting.

Also, that place is just crawling with corporate shills.

> So if a user posts enough poorly-received content, this can be spotted easily, and they’re likely to be judged harshly or shunned by the community at large.

That's not actually true, I never see that happen. But it's interesting that the author considers this desirable. So basically, you get punished, with absolutely NO burden of any kind, any toddler can do it, and then others see that "social credit score" and treat you like a thought criminal, without even knowing who punished you for what.

Incredible. Also, no. No pasaran. Not one, not a billion. Not. even. one. inch.

And that's not even getting into Ghostbusters, and how sexists were used as a fig (pun omitted on purpose) leaf to smear anyone who didn't like the movie as sexist.

Bleh. Here's a sentiment on the matter that doesn't suck from start to finish:

> My reason for reducing my social media presence is the Like count next to every thought expressed. By adding a publicly visible number next to every expressed human thought, you influence behavior and thinking.


Not to mention how it opens to the door to manipulation. No matter how you slice it, it destroys human thought, and it takes a while of that process to even arrive at an article such as this.


Welcome | Guidelines | Bookmarklet | Feature Requests | Source | Contact | Twitter | Lists

RSS (stories) | RSS (comments)