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!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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!!
> 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 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.