jeremyparker @ jeremyparker @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

255

Joined

2 yr. ago

Joking aside, it’s actually not. It was invented to explain why a particular group of captives were critical of the cops who arrested their captor — but it turns out it was because the cops were incredibly incompetent and nearly got them all killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrmalmstorg_robbery

Back in my day we used to make “tfw” (that feel when) or “mfw” (my face when) posts that rarely if ever contained a face or a feeling

So you hate women and don’t want them to have bodily autonomy? You see how that sounds? It’s the same logic as your argument.

Came here for this. How can they legally use a headline like that. This is why we can’t have nice things.

You make a compelling point, for sure. There are definitely features that fall into that category (eg page transitions), there are a lot of other things coming out these days that just make life easier.

For example, in chrome (and in the spec) you can now animate between ‘height: [number]’ and ‘height:auto;’ just the other day, I had to write a python function to estimate the highest of a menu based on its length * the line height of the list items, so I could provide an exact height to animate to. It works, but it’s hacky and gross. It would be nice to have access to the solution.

If both of them support genocide, but one also supports banning abortion, the ethical choice is to vote for the one that won’t ban abortion.

If you’d rather wait until a candidate arrives that agrees with you on every issue, that’s fine, but you’ll probably never vote, and in the meantime, by not voting, supporting whichever candidate you like less.

While there’s no honor in the presidency, there is honor in doing what you can to reduce harm, and if you can’t reduce harm to the Palestinians, at least you can reduce harm to American women and girls.

You’re not wrong, but, like with critics of other “abolish such-n-such” statements, you’re missing a core part of it: replacing “such-n-such” with something better. Copyright has a few important purposes, and I don’t think anyone would want to eliminate it without covering those — and the need for creators to survive, and maybe even flourish, is chief among them.

(Same thing with “defund the police” — the intention was to redirect that funding to crime prevention and “alternative policing” (eg send therapists to mental health emergencies instead of cops). That was arguably the biggest PR fail of the century.)

Also, very very minor point, but as a librarian:

content libraries

I think “content collections” would be a better term, to preserve the free-to-share subtext of the word “library” — and “collection” has more of a hoarding context, which fits.

That’s true, but, obviously there’s a market share difference between those two. And the fact that it’s ALWAYS ff that lags behind, it’s not like there’s cool things that ff can do that chrome can’t.

And, more importantly, there’s the browser I like (ff) which doesn’t do the thing, and the browsers I don’t like, which do.

FWIW tho, i don’t think OP will actually apply to ALL chromium browsers. I’ve been using Vivaldi when I cheat on Firefox, and none of the anti-adblock changes Google’s been making have impacted Vivaldi, and I assume that pattern will continue.

As a person who cares about css , it’s still a problem. There are so many cool features that everyone has implemented Firefox. I still use FF as my daily driver, because, as you said, duh, but every time I see new stuff added to the spec, I check MDN, and it’ll be all green except Firefox.

I mean, maybe if the Firefox/Chrome market share ratio inverts, ff will suddenly have a lot more pressure to keep up?

Most people say things like “fuck copyright” because it’s currently set up to benefit employers, large companies, and wealthy people; creators are an obstacle in copyright law. Current copyright law hinders creativity and centralizes wealth. Fuck copyright.

If copyright law was creator-centric, there would be a lot fewer people saying “fuck copyright”.

Personally I’d probably still be against copyright, but only if there was some other way to take care of artists, like a UBI or something.

If copyright protected the creatives then there would be a lot less antagonism against copyright. Most people are against it because it’s become a lever of control for big companies to use against both the creators and the public.

My journey was Windows-> Ubuntu -> Mint -> Fedora -> Arch.

(Infuriatingly i still use windows for gaming, but nothing else.)

Did i mention that i use arch?

More importantly:

fucked up all my data with no backup.

One time i messed up a script and accidentally copied 40,000 mp3s to the same filename. 20 years of music collecting, literally going back to Napster, all gone.

Well, not completely gone. I've got everything uploaded to iBroadcast, and I'm pretty sure i can download my library. But I'm not sure i deserve to.

Surely it's because they want to increase the amount they pay the musicians.

If you like to upload your own music (like Google music), iBroadcast is the tippy tops. You can still use bandcamp (with or without yt-dlp) for discovery, and then upload what you like to iBroadcast.

iBroadcast is what i use. That plus rutracker and you can sail the high seas like it's 1699.

HTML is pretty straightforward so just understanding the very basic stuff is probably all you need. CSS is where html gets any challenge it might have.

CSS is weird because it's very "easy" so "real developers" kind of object to learning it, but the truth is, if you gave any of them a layout design, they probably couldn't build it. There are tools like tailwind to help, but, IMO, tailwind just helps you avoid learning css's vocabulary, but you just replace it with having to learn tailwind's vocabulary.

JavaScript on the other hand is a "real" programming language, though decidedly quick-n-dirtier than other languages. It lets you be a lot more sloppy. (Tbh it's a lot more forgiving than css!). As a result, it lacks the elegance and control that "real developers" like -- and, as most people's first language, it lets newcomers get into bad habits. For these reasons, JavaScript is a bit derided -- but, unlike CSS, most developers can't avoid it.

There are a few key ideas in JavaScript that, once you understand them, things make a lot more sense. (I won't get into them now, since it doesn't sound like you're at the point where that kind of clarity would help, but, when you are, come on back here and make a post!)

TLDR: HTML is definitely something you can just pick up along the way. JavaScript is a real language that will take a little while to feel comfortable with, and it will take a career to master. CSS will never be easy, so don't let it hold you back.

Hi everyone, JP here. This person is making a reference to the Weird Al biopic, and if you haven't seen it, you should.

Weird Al is an incredible person and has been through so much. I had no idea what a roller coaster his life has been! I always knew he was talented but i definitely didn't know how strong he is.

His autobiography will go down in history as one of the most powerful and compelling and honest stories ever told. If you haven't seen it, you really, really should.

ITT NO SPOILERS PLS

I dated a girl named Password for a while. She was a lot older than me, she was born in the year 1234.

Anyway, @op the exact same thing happened to me. I gotta get smarter about opsec.

This isn't true. AI can generate tan people if you show them the color tan and a pale person -- or green people or purple people. That's all ai does, whether it's image or text generation -- it can create things it hasn't seen by smooshing together things it has seen.

And this is proven by reality: ai CAN generate csam, but it's trained on that huge image database, which is constantly scanned for illegal content.

I guess my question is, why would anyone continue to "consume" -- or create -- real csam? If fake and real are both illegal, but one involves minimal risk and 0 children, the only reason to create real csam is for the cruelty -- and while I'm sure there's a market for that, it's got to be a much smaller market. My guess is the vast majority of "consumers" of this content would opt for the fake stuff if it took some of the risk off the table.

I can't imagine a world where we didn't ban ai generated csam, like, imagine being a politician and explaining that policy to your constituents. It's just not happening. And i get the core point of that kind of legislation -- the whole concept of csam needs the aura of prosecution to keep it from being normalized -- and normalization would embolden worse crimes. But imagine if ai made real csam too much trouble to produce.

AI generated csam could put real csam out of business. If possession of fake csam had a lesser penalty than the real thing, the real stuff would be much harder to share, much less monetize. I don't think we have the data to confirm this but my guess is that most pedophiles aren't sociopaths and recognize their desires are wrong, and if you gave them a way to deal with it that didn't actually hurt chicken, that would be huge. And you could seriously throw the book at anyone still going after the real thing when ai content exists.

Obviously that was supposed to be children not chicken but my phone preferred chicken and I'm leaving it.