Replugging bepis, another way to write 'flat' HTML using operators with a slightly different operator set: https://github.com/dosyago/bepis
For me I just wanted to stop writing all the extra syntax (like `< > =` and closing tags) and use symbols my fingers were already reaching for. Just about conciseness, efficiency and enjoyment.
I really like the operator choice in this project!
Obligatory humblebrag/shameless plug for my open source PDF(+ other docs) to Image converter, which runs as a web app. It's self hosted open source (but easiest to run on FreeBSD). Uses Ghostscript/OpenOffice under the hood:
This is not an Open-source portfolio template (but I guess you could use it for that), it's my portfolio of work in open-source. It's all my own projects, not contributions to other things.
I'm putting it out here with the understanding it will probably attract some snark and hate (that's fine, to be expected here) but with the intent of someone seeing it and going "I wanna hire that guy/fund that guy/sponsor that guy." Veeery unlikely, but there's always a possibility.
Also waiting for the "Who is/wants to be hired" post for March. Where is that? Is that still done here?
produces repayable archives in a format that doesn't have the issues of WARC. It's a work in progress tho and currently archives everything, instead of just what you select.
You can of course edit the archive by hand. it's very simple to do, but not as simple as being able to select only what you want.
I think there's a whitelist Domain option that works per archive.
I don't think it's an existential threat to FAANG. Because they could request access to your data to perform their AI/analytics on it to then be able to deliver you value-added personalized services.
Most likely these sort of brokered accesses will be the purview of third-party data brokers who will handle your pods for you.
I'm more pessimistic. The internet and the apps we use frequently are like a public utility. The space is undergoing an era of massive consolidation and centralization.
This happened with railroads, and electricity, in the past. That period of consolidation was never followed by counterbalanced period of decentralization, a period of people operating their own mini-rail-car services, or micro power plants (solar, but...you know...).
It was followed by steady decline in prices of tickets, expansion in size of monopolies and steady decline in quality of service.
But you know, electricity and railroads became "democratized" just not in a "democratic" way. It's democratized because everyone can use a bit of it for basically nothing.
Then, the companies that made their fortunes often moved onto other high growth industries and the public became inured to the dilapidation, because the product had basically stagnated.
I don't see this company making any statement that suggests to me it can bring about some other possible future.
I disagree with the title. I've used waterfall and still found engineering hard.
Even you have a bulletproof requirements document, implementation and engineering still produces unforeseen eventualities and unexpected consequences.
I think software engineering is hard primarily because it's the coalface between abstract and concrete.
We're wired to be great at concrete, but capable at abstract. With software it's like we can get ourselves into a perfect storm of intractable-for-us problems.
Other forms of engineering, civil, mechanical, etc are still really hard, but I think we're better wired for them because they're less abstract, more concrete.
But in software, abstraction is part of your bread-and-butter daily-grind tool-kit.
Respectfully, ( that's a cool name ) but I think you're missing the point here by reducing it to this bipolar conflict between politically insecure acting out and idiocy. I think it's a much cooler and bigger picture.
I think the case is actually very interesting, and not clear cut. It's going to be interesting to find out what the law means as applied to software in this way. I think it's fascinating. A real test between the 'old power' of the law, and the 'new power' of software, I think seeing this play out and considering the implications is incredibly interesting, and as tech people, we're the best placed to enjoy how interesting is.
All the shrill rhetoric of both sides and press aside, I think it's a very significant case even if they weren't massive companies (...tho maybe it couldn't have come this far if the companies hadn't been able to afford it).
In a similar, but less glamorous vein was the LinkedIn vs somebody data scraping case, the outcome of which was very interesting and meaningful. Anyway, I hope people can appreciate the significance of the case without dismissing or simplifying it in this shrill, childish way, and can think about the software implications, which are probably going to be very interesting.
I mean when it's all done we'll probably get to know where we all stand more clearly with software, licensing, re-use and so on, and probably new opportunities we don't see clearly now will become possible because of how the law is figured regarding this. I think that's fascinating, and has nothing to do with idiocy or politics.
I suppose it depends on the security classification of the textbook.
But seriously, your question probably depends on how you assess the explanations in textbooks, and the meaning of sure. I mean, are you sure you're satisfied with textbook explanations for stuff?
But the bigger picture is, it doesn't matter if we're sure, we're not sure about anything. We're not even sure about what's in the textbooks. It exists, the reports exist, that's what matters.
Gaining understanding by converting magic to mundane is good, but we don't get there by pretending everything is already explainable. We don't get there by denying the magic. Obviously.
We got to face it, right? It doesn't have to be aliens (or any theory that makes it hard for people to think about because they find it impossible to face), but we gotta look at it. And if the "textbooks" (or other 'sources of authority') are explaining it away as stuff we already know, that's not helping us look at the magic, that we need to understand, right? capiche? Obvious, right? I don't know why everyone's so crazy about this.
Science is supposed to look at stuff it doesn't understand. When did everyone get so scared of doing that?
What i'm really saying is in this case the theorizing has gotten in it's own way, isn't that obvious? i'm saying we should try to understand, but you gotta have the courage to face the mystery first, so you can see it clearly, without these kaleidoscope distortions preventing you from ever seeing the data you need to get understanding.
point of theory is to gain understanding, no? but if you're using theory as a stick to beat other people with, and if the theory is preventing people looking at the data (that you could turn into understanding), or if it's not falsifiable, then it's not helping.
you can't disprove the government creates all this as a psyop. but that 'theory' discourages people from taking the evidence seriously. you also can't disprove 'it is all aliens' but that theory discourages (perhaps another set of people) from taking the data seriously.
theories are good! except when they're not. and in this case they've gone fucking crazy. it's like sportsteams. there's no rationality. and science won't touch it, that's the problem. these pathetic theories are in way. they might be fun (to cheer for) but they're not helping understanding.
that's what i'm saying. that's the problem. or one of them, duh.
the first two are real, I've seen it. RV is used as a signal for stock picking, is a not very well known but real niche industry. There are people who consistently perform above 75%.
telekinesis is real, but humans are pretty weak at it. just watch YouTube.
as for the last two, I haven't seen anything that proves it but the reports of tech and others stuff make it sound possible.
your editorial stance is just one of many possibilities ellipsis why you so attached to it?
why? first, whether you say it's aliens or "the government", face it, both those concepts are black boxes to invoke to explain the unexplainable, ergo they're equivalent explanations, or different valence, same kind
second, why be so quick to grasp and reduce it to a theory? why not just be a little bit comfortable with the discomfort of an unresolved tension? why just not be a little bit comfortable with an unanswered question, an unknown, a mystery, something amazing and wonderful and unable to be explained? why the need to rush to explain it reaching and grasping and expose yourself to the error of putting your need to explain it in front of actual accuracy?
you can't end up with something good like that. you just satisfy your need of an explanation but why not just be comfortable with the question, with the mystery?
That's a problem without secular world.... people need to get more comfortable with the mystery otherwise it's the stupid anthropomorphic point of view that says nothing a human can see outside it's tiny stupid ignorant little box exists... why not just do the easy thing and acknowledge okay there's a whole lot of fucking mystery out there I'm not going to rush to say it's this or that I'm just going to be okay with, "okay there's a lot of stuff I don't fucking know"
that seems like the rationale sensible and to be honest happy perspective to take
why everyone wants got to be so crazy to rationalize and theorize and reduce it to some story when nobody has any fucking idea at all? isn't that just psychosis?
do yourself a favor don't believe anything just keep an open mind don't rush to believe cuz you most likely believe in something that's fucking crazy
Maybe don't be so literal? maybe there are words for things that we don't understand yet.... we don't have the words yet so we have to reuse existing words and apply some imagination... that's not bad or hard is it?
This all just seems a little anachronistic... a little arrogant...
Are there really people in this day and age that believe there's nothing that exists that can't be explained with a textbook? Is the world do devoid of magic, or is wonder in such bountiful supply that something amazing and wonderful must be snuffed out, crushed under the weight of such dullness, such grasping conspiracy theories?
A government psyop, really? That's your big plan to explain centuries of reports -- that all of that is because it's some state wanting to massage the minds of it's soldiers... are you insane?
The tipping point has been reached where conspiracy theories denying this stuff have become crazier than the reports of it.
I think a new and very rich vein of crazy is about to make itself available to the masses for their entertainment, that is the mental gymnastics some people will tie themselves into to deny the existence of something which they find impossible to face.
For me I just wanted to stop writing all the extra syntax (like `< > =` and closing tags) and use symbols my fingers were already reaching for. Just about conciseness, efficiency and enjoyment.
I really like the operator choice in this project!