Listen man, we (as individuals) can't care for or help everybody. Connect with the ones you care about and don't harm everyone else. The fact that I don't care about you, doesn't mean we can't coexist or even help each other.
Looking form another angle, why not wanting to socialize in stranger small talk is bad? Why I am expected to accommodate? Why can't we just enjoy the silence in this hypothetical situation?
I see this sentiment more often than not. Me, as the less social party, is expected to move out of my comfort zone, but the person trying get me into a conversation isn't expected do the same and just keep to themselves.
It doesn't matter. If there is no free will, the illusion is strong enough to make me think that there is.
There is no way of proving if it's chemistry, physics, will of god or actual free will. I feel like I have free will, it doesn't matter what the truth is because the truth cannot break the illusion.
A brain can only make me feel free will and that's all that matters practically.
I hate small talk, because you (a stranger) do not interest me and I don't care about trying to connect with you. I have neither the need nor the energy to try and am very comfortable just being in silence.
I small talk with people that I interact on a daily basis and need to communicate with (coworkers). Even then it heavily depends on how much energy I have.
I small talk with my friends and SO because I want to connect. So I put effort in to be present in the conversations.
It's not right to lump small talk with a cashier, cab driver or a haircutter together with small talk with a friend or a partner.
This is supported, but not integrated in bookmark lookup. I mean, if you hit ctrl+s, the browser will save currently rendered HTML. No crawling required. Hooking up some text indexing for search seems perfectly doable.
This would be a whole new pipeline to make interactivity work. Emulating a server with cached responses would allow to reuse the JS part of websites and is easier to do. I have no doubt that some pages wouldn't work and there would be a shitton of security considerations I can't imagine.
This "machine state" definition and manipulation is exactly the hard part of the concept. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's a beast of a problem.
Our best current solutions are just dumb web crawler bots.
To me a simple page saving (ctrl+s) integration seems like a most realistic solution.
Ok, so your average site doesn't download content directly. The initial load is just the framework required to fetch and render the content dynamically.
Short of just crawling the whole site, there is no real way to know what, when or why a thing is loaded into memory.
You can't even be sure that some pages will stay the same after every single refresh.
Comparing it to saving the state of OS isn't fair because the state is in one place. On the machine running the code. The difference here is that the state of the website is not in control of the browser and there's no standard way to access it in a way that would allow what you're describing.
Now, again, saving rendered HTML is trivial, but saving the whole state of a dynamic website require a full on web crawler and then not only loading saved pages and scripts, but also emulating the servers to fetch the data rendered.
Most likely it's just a validation not related to actual storage of the information.
It's something that can happen automagically when using a library. I wouldn't be too surprised if this length limitation is just a default of whatever registration solution they are using.
Judging from screenshots in this article, it doesn't seem to loose or gain any functionality: all of the same controls are present.
With this in mind.
Who cares!? It's neither good nor bad. It's like the thing with playback line color. Yes, it's different, no, I didn't notice until some pointed it out, no, I couldn't care less.
No it doesn't, multiplication and division always take precedence over addition and subtraction. You'd need parentheses to clarify what is in the divisor since that can be ambiguous with line notation.
Times 5 and times 10 tables are really easy for me. So yeah, in my mind it's an easier comuptation.
That being said having a result of a little over a 1000 gives me an estimate for the magnitude of a number – it's around a thousand. It might be more or less but it's not far from there.
That's what I do in my head if I need an exact result. If I'm approximateing I'll probably just do something like 70 * 15 which is much easier to compute (70 * 10 + 70 * 5 = 700 + 350 = 1050).
Did I write this?