I find this to be vile political posting, moving responsibility for Trump's rightwing fascism to a social theorists is just misguided, banal and does not belong here. Don't you have X for that?
thinking out loud: it'd be great if web servers could sign their responses+timestamp, so you could guarantee getting the right content even through such intermediaries
I'd say the article makes a pretty explicit case for why the general thesis of the book does not hold, which makes your comment stand out as comparatively superficial whataboutism
While I agree with the sentiment, I think it confuses ISPs with registrars. There are still many ISPs that do that service as well, it's less common than it used to be.
It is quite common for national TLDs (like .de, .jp or .cn) to be managed by not-for-profit entities, under contract with their respective governments... which might also not be great wrt censorship.
There is also the general issue of equal access, where shorter, more memorable domains get more expensive and hodling domain names is only disincentivized for people without enough funds. I would very much like to see an alternative system to domain names, probably something more in the web of trust space.
I meant programming-time, but runtime is also a good point.
Cross-language libraries don't seem to be super common for this. The recovering-sense-from-text tools I named all use different parsers in their respective languages.
Again, reading (and yes, technically that's also parsing) from an AST from a data-exchange formatted file is mags simpler. And for parsing these schemes there are battle-tested cross-language solutions, e.g. protobuf.
The complexity of a parser is orders of magnitude higher than that of an AST schema.
I'm also not saying we can have all these good things, but they are not free, and the costs are more spread out and thus less obviously noticeable than the ones projectional code imposes.
For me, that's what "short-sighted inability" means. The business ecosystem we have does not have the attention span for this kind of project. What we need is individuals grouping together against the gradient of incentives (which is hard indeed).
Even that is not without its cost. Most of these tools are written in different languages, which all have to maintain their own parsers, which have to keep up with language changes.
And there are abilities we lose completely by making text the source of truth, like a reliable version control for "this function moved to a new file".
Text surely is a hill, but I believe it's a local one, we got stuck on due to our short-sighted inability to go into a valley for a few miles until we find the (projectional) mountain.
All of your examples work better for code with structural knowledge:
- diff: https://semanticdiff.com (and others), i.e.: hide noisy syntax only changes, attempt to capture moved code. I say attempt, because with projectional programming we could have a more expressive notion of code being moved
- version control: I'd look towards languages like Unison to see what funky things we could do here, especially for libraries. A general example: no conflicts due to non-semantic changes (re-orderings, irrelevant whitespaces, etc.)
I don't think that's a necessary consequence. React is free, a sort-of recruitment loss-leader for Meta. Imo you can get to a moral zero on this pretty easily despite still using React, by supporting out-of-Meta React OSS and using your platforms to denounces Meta's carelessness.
On the other hand: Companies pay for Microsoft's offerings and they support the Israeli military in their genocidal campaign in Gaza, I think getting to a moral zero on that is significantly harder.
How does her attempt to change things from the inside, by confronting their higher ups, who constantly put her down for it and collectivizing with other insiders, still lead you to such a harsh judgment of her character?