sloum

Meh. The project died for me when they started using LLMs for development in the first place.

Nah: https://www.magicbell.com/blog/using-push-notifications-in-p...

You could add features to make it a PWA and explain to users how to save it t their desktop. I used ProtonMail for years that way (I do not have a smartphone anymore, so no longer do so).

Yes!! This!! I wrote a shell awhile back and was pretty happy with it... but could _not_ get job control to work quite right. It was a big pain.

Found it:

“Covered application store” means a publicly available internet website, software application, online service, or platform that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers to users of a computer, a mobile device, or any other general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application.

To whittle down the the important part:

“Covered application store” means any [...] general purpose computing that can access a covered application store or can download an application

If you have a network stack, you can 100% connect to a "covered application store" and thus the OS falls under the scope of the law.

I believe that if you have a network stack and can download files from the internet--which would include software--that it counts. I don't want to re-read to find the part, but they seemed to imply that any system where you could download software from the internet and then run it.

From the bill:

"Covered application store” does not mean an online service or platform that distributes extensions, plug-ins, add-ons, or other software applications that run exclusively within a separate host application

There is a reasonable argument that a linux distribution is, itself, a host application. This is clearly an argument against their intention... but makes perfect sense to me. With this argument, the law does not apply to pretty much any environment where the applications are scheduled and run by a supervising process, at least by my reading.

"vile machines raping the planet" is obviously vitriol

Well, I still think you are giving an opinion and I am giving mine. I disagree with your opinion. Mr. Pike is making a statement of fact. I do not consider it particularly vitriolic. You may consider it hyperbolic and I could understand that (even if I do not agree with it).

Abolish it rather than continuing the current path, strict prohibition on any creative endeavor, and being extremely skeptical about anything other than direct language translation

...is not extreme in the slightest. If something is wrong (either morally or as a good and viable path forward) it only makes sense to cease following that path. I posit that it is not possible to creatively use this technology. It can only serve to steal the creativity of others. Prompting a machine to make something out of misc. parts for you does not make you creative. Nor does it make the machine creative. But for us to agree on that we would have to better define either creativity or art (spoiler: my view is that only sentient beings can be creative or make art). I suppose I could agree that the developers of an AI system are being creative, but certainly not the users. Being skeptical is always a good position with something new until shown reasons to not be skeptical. Positions are allowed to grown and change, s tarting skeptical about something is absolutely a reasonable position to start from. I see none of your statement as being evidence of extremism at all. Sounds like exercising sound, reasonable judgement.

Well, I couldn't disagree more with you: being anti-AI is absolutely not an extreme position. You are living in a bubble if you think it is. "Fervent anti-AI territory" is a good position, not hate speech.

Funny, it seems perfectly appropriate to me.

Yeah, but the industry is a big part of the problem and most people working in it are complicit at this point (whether or not they are reluctantly complicit).

I also really like asymmetrical games. In particular the various Tafl[0] reconstructions. Some are unbalanced, but some are very balanced and fun to play as either attacker or defender. There are various versions with rule variations to accommodate various board sizes too.

I have not played Unlur. Looks like a cool hex variant. I like the initial phase where who plays white is decided. It is a neat way of working that out.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafl_games

Agreed. I tried to dig around a bit in the pdf (though I am admittedly distracted at the moment) and it looked like a tree walk interpreter being built. At least at first. There were some sections involving x86 assembly, so it may eventually compile down to that architecture in later segments?

If anyone knows more about the style of copmiler(s) that this covers I would be interested in knowing. If I find the time to dig through the book a bit more and find out I'll update here.

Using color alone to distinguish links is explicitly an accessibility violation. Underlines are not a requirement. I certainly agree that the link system here is atypical. It just isnt an accessibility violation.

If you dont care about the standards, which governments use to define how accessibility works and who it applies to for legal purposes, then you essentially want to make up your own rules, policies, and ideas. Which is fine, mostly. However, it doesn't really give you solid ground to stand on when making an argument about other people's work. The fact is that according to the recognized "experts" on the subject (I'm using recognized here because again, governments use these standards and they have legal merit) there is nothing wrong with these links. There is, however, something wrong with conflating accessibility and usability. They are different. One applies to protected classes. The other has to do with everyone, but is in no way protected. There are legal ramifications to one. With the other, you are maybe a jerk for doing things against usability, but if it is equally bad for everyone, it often is not an accessibility issue. Accessibility is about leveling a palying field, usability is an opinion based thing regarding how a random person might interact with a website and usually relates to design decisions, not programatic experiences.

There is a clear pattern and clear consistency at play here and there is no violation of the w3c/wai standards involving these links.

The link styling system used on the wiki complies with all web accessibility standards: it clearly and consistently shows a link without using color as the sole determining factor. An underling is not required (whether you think it should be or not, though feel free to get involved, join a working group, and lobby for the change to your hearts content... though I think it will be an uphill battle for you). Accessibility standards are about helping those with disabilities. What you are experiencing is a difference of opinion about _usability_. I personally do not experience the same usability issues, but to each their own on that one. Accessibility and usability are two very different things and should not be conflated.

Or as an alternate approach:

https://tildegit.org/sloum/swim

I have not been on an official tilde server (I wouldnt join because they have a code of conduct which I think infantilises adult humans)... but I am on a few pubnixes (circumlunar.space, rawtext.club, colorfield.space) and know a large number of folks that do not align with social and economic left values on these servers. Honestly, most of us stay out of political discussion on the servers and mostly talk about tech or sometimes philosophy (which can have political elements to it). Anecdotal, of course, so ymmv... but so long as you arent being a jerk to other people I've not seen any issues with people having diverging views of those sorts on these servers (at least the ones I have been on).

That seems reasonable to me. Small groups can be easily torn apart bad bad actors. Even well meaning folks that just don't vibe well can really hae a large effect on small intentional communities. It isnt about being good enough, by my reading, it is about a good fit.

Different standard library, different focus, similar-ish core interpreter. However, it doesnt need to be different. This was not built for folks other than me and a few friends to use (I didnt post it here on hacker news, and am not looking to "grow a userbase").

macros werent necessary for me and the language is for me. I can always add them later (as the other comments mention). Not having them makes things simpler and easier for those with less programming experience that don't need power features. Those that end up needing them can always move on to scheme, clojure, common lisp, etc.

I would agree. Simple and old school, but with a dash of modern features was what I was going for. I used Logo a good bit when I was young, so I can appreciate the comparison.

Because at one point filter was implemented as a special form in the interpreter rather than in the library. As such it was colored with special forms. That has changed and it is now in the library, but I have not gone into the highlight plugin to switch the colors as it is not a high priority.

Language/website author here: nope. Just good old fashioned html, css, and a pinch of vanilla js just to get a few things working.

I had tried out making a forth a while back. It was not, in the end, as usable as I'd like. I thought something more in the vein of scheme might be useful (to me) and fun to work on. Some scheme features I think are tricky and not needed for beginners and I think somewhere along the line I started making this to be a beginner focused language that is easy to learn and hold in your head. I had a few people in my technology community in mind as people that it would be good for. In the end I really enjoyed coding in it, so have continued to work on it.

It is definitely not meant for wide usage, for anything other than just messing around having fun, etc. To be honest I am a little bummed it made its way to hacker news (I havent and wouldnt have posted it), as I really like my group of 6 users that I know and we all have fun contributing and coming up with ideas and cool use cases. I don't need it to grow or be used by a wider audience than the pubnix we all hang out on (rawtext.club).

That said, I'm glad you like the website! and if you like the lang that is nice too :-D

The almost full and complete point of this is to REMOVE the ability of "commercial players" from having a role or interest in the platform at all. They have already ruined the web and society as a whole (but that gets into a whole argument for/against capitalism... take a wild guess where I stand).

Gopher will be faster by nature of gemini using TLS. However, gopher is inherently less secure than gemini. If you are wanting the TLS, gemini _should_ load your document faster than the https (even with minimal headers included for the https version, there is still more header overhead to just make the request and there is a lot more header overhead in most responses).

I believe there is a lobste.rs mirror (not sure about hacker news). It includes the comments, but in a read only presentation (gemini is more or less inherently read only; though there is a separate protocol called titan that handles writing for gemini servers that support it).

I do not think it is inconvenient at all, it is just different that what people have come to expect.

Same with using Bombadillo in a terminal (assuming a graphical environment is present and the user has set webmode to GUI).