No no not something on top of the UI stack. They also need framebuffer support so they are big headache to setup on headless server.
What I mean is that we can bring some web tech to terminal natively. We don't even need a separated shell. Security and bi-directional communication is built by default because of UNIX socket. But we still need to think how to handle stuff like cookie, local storage, external CSS / JS, ...
That's interesting idea. If we put into CLI with some ANSI escape code, that may become something real. Imagine a normal terminal app just render part of the UI in web and communicating in UNIX socket. While doing the fancy UI, everything is still controllable with keyboard, and optionally with mouse. The UI will fallback to text UI for older terminal
Thanks for the sharing. It looks interesting but I did not dive deep into it. Just wonder how is it different from SQL trigger which can also ensure integrities?
It's because of survival pressure :-/ I think we are falling in an unprecedentedly large-scale negative-sum prisoner dilemma.
This situation may be naturally evolved, or may be deliberately shaped by people or institutions. In any way, negative-sum can drive people to do irrational decision because the game is not beneficial in all cases.
Human economic systems tend to reward things that are easy to measure, own, scale, and control. That works pretty well for machines, markets, software, and bureaucracy, but it doesn’t work as well for living systems, which rely on diversity, backup systems, and local adaptation.
So we end up with this pattern: we capture the useful order for ourselves, then push the mess, waste, heat, and instability onto the environment.
This is the fundamental nature of human. We can't change it without higher-order regulation. Even in AI training, we assume there is one true distribution and optimizes for it.
We created these systems. And unfortunately, most of us are the unwanted in these systems at the same time.
> to harden a system you need to spend more tokens discovering exploits than attackers will spend exploiting them
This is true until certain point, unless the requirement / contract itself has loophole which the attacker can exploit it without limit. But I don't think this is the case.
Let's say, if someone found an loophole in sort() which can cause denial-of-service. The cause would be the implementation itself, not the contract of sorting. People + AI will figure it out and fix it eventually.
There is no need to change `$SHELL` :-/ you can use Bass (https://github.com/edc/bass) to execute any bash script and it will apply the environment variables to the current fish environment.
Such monad interfaces are best enforced by language / compiler, however it is non-tractable to do that. Even in Haskell they just move the monoid check to programmer (especially associativity). What is worse, if the law is violated in some tiny subset of the data, that can lead to non-trivial bug. That is why it is difficult to apply in real world, which is usually very complicated :-(
What I mean is that we can bring some web tech to terminal natively. We don't even need a separated shell. Security and bi-directional communication is built by default because of UNIX socket. But we still need to think how to handle stuff like cookie, local storage, external CSS / JS, ...