bilog

Their business model is selling ads. They don't give a rats ass about the open web.

XML source + XSLT can be considerably more compact than the resulting transformation, saving on hosting and bandwidth.

Can CSS be used to produce plots from XML data?

https://wok.oblomov.eu/tecnologia/plotting-xslt/

https://wok.oblomov.eu/tecnologia/plotting-sparklines-xslt/

For one, in many cases the XML + XSLT is more compact than the rendered output, so there are hosting and bandwidth benefits, especially if you're transforming a lot of XML files with the same XSLT.

There's even a JS implementation of XSLT 3.0 already (SaxonJS).

Because those neglecting it are the same that want to remove it. So it's not “we want to remove it because it's neglected”, but “we want to remove it so we'll neglect it”. This is a pretty standard M.O. for the destruction of the commons.

If you look at the WHATWG GH issue, you'll see that two distinct, modern, maintained implementations of XSLT, one of which in Rust (so considerably less likely to be affected by memory bugs) have been proposed as alternatives to what's currently used in WebKit and Blink. The suggestions has been ignored without a motivation, because the neglect is the point.

Also, fun fact, XSLT 3 relies on XPath 3.1 which can also handle JSON.

Most of the issues of using client-side XSLT is that browsers haven't updated their implementations since v1 nor their tooling to improve debugging. Both of these issues are resolved improving the implementations and tooling, as pointed out by several commenters on the GH issue.

That's Richard Spencer trying to explain Pepe the Frog. Relevant commentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKICKcMU3MU

It does, a least in my case (AMD RX580 with distro amdgpu driver).

The intuition with the columns of pennies over a plate doesn't translate because in the plate case the surface is fixed (the surface of the plate) so the pressure depends on how much weight you put on it. In the case of multiple columns of water, the pressure you're looking at is the pressure on the combined surface of both columns, which remains constant because both the weight AND the surface are increasing proportionally, keeping the ratio (that gives you the pressure) constant.

The equations are conceptually simple: Navier-Stokes equations (conservation of momentum) and conservation of mass. The behavior is emergent.

And the biggest takeaway to me was that the software is still heavily bugged, especially the UI.

IME it's also a good idea to organize periodic get-togethers to "coalesce" some collaboration aspects that are harder to manage remotely.

That goes both ways though. It also means that you can get hired by some company on the other side of the world that possibly offers better conditions than anything local.

CUDA uses a single-source approach, meaning that the host (CPU) and device (GPU) code are in the same file. So it requires a special compiler (nvcc) that splits the original source files, compiles the host and device parts separately, and then merges the result back together.

This requires nvcc and the device compiler to have exact knowledge of how the host compiler compiles every single construct (thing e.g. about alignment and padding in complex structures), and they must at least be able to parse the syntax of the host include files (which e.g. fails if the include files have C++11 syntax, but the device compiler only knows how to parse C++98).

The problem is that the only way to win against non-free software is to provide viable free-software alternatives. Free software cannot win on ideology alone, it _has_ to provide the features users need.

RMS doesn't care about "open source"

Apparently, he also doesn't care about free software enough either, since he apparently prefers users to switch to something they can _use_ than allow provision of the functionality they need, on the basis that the same functionality could be used by non-free software.

The problem is that Stallman has painted himself in a corner here. On the one hand, he says: don't use LLVM/Clang, it's dangerous, use GCC instead; on the other hand, he says, no, you cannot add to GCC the features that you would need to use it instead of LLVM/Clang. The net result is that Emacs will not have a set of features that are _essential_ for development of C++ software, which in turn drives people away from using Emacs to other IDEs.

He's not furthering the cause of GNU and the FSF, he is not promoting free software, he is _driving people away from it_.

What's the point of making all those talks about the importance of free software, if you then actively _prevent_ free software from being useful?

Software exist because it has a use, otherwise it's just a worthless exercise in futility.

The first thing that shows up in a VIM session is a small introductory text that includes

    type   :help<Enter>  or   <F1>  for on-line help