So creative, Martin! Is this inspired by those 'futuristic' human machine interfaces in movies, such as 'Minority Report'? Was this inspired at all by small devices, like Apple Watch?
caveats: no external images, no custom fonts, no other iframes ( but this can be a positive as it removes ads ). Try it on google search result page, github, bloomberg, etc. It produces a 'text only' image of the page -- only inline images included. pages with lots of external stylesheets take a while ( 10 - 15 seconds ). some sites ( youtube, flickr ) just give a mostly blank page.
caveats: no external images, no custom fonts, no other iframes ( but this can be a positive as it removes ads ). Try it on google search result page, github, bloomberg, etc. It produces a 'text only' image of the page. big pages take a while ( 10 - 15 seconds ). some sites ( youtube, flickr ) just give a mostly blank page.
No offence, but with a megabyte of text per speaker I feel I could do better with word n-gram Markov models (even bigrams), and random path choice.
I think deep learning is great and all ( and I'm meaning to learn it ) but shouldn't it be able to do far better than Markov models, or other simple things?
Image captioning? Incredible. Deep Mind winning video games? Incredible. Style transfer? Incredible. With one exception ( I saw on HN ages ago, sorry I have no link -- it basically generates novel text using deep learning, across all sorts of genres, such as "academic paper", "math paper", "novel", "film script" and I found the results remarkable and interesting ) I question if many text applications are doing better than Markov.
I think the issue is there is something fundamental and sophisticated about human language which our current deep learning models, with all their omniscient benevolence ( or whatever ), are missing. There's something deep about the structure of language that we are not modelling yet in deep learning as far as I've seen. When we do .... boom ... computers that learn from the internet and amaze us all. Then we'll have something to shine, smile about or fear.
Sorry for the digression and what may be inapplicable comparisons. I can get impassioned about this topic.
Trying to achieve the trust you are is very interesting.
I put up a simple, installable, progressive offline app of this crypto here: https://semocracy.com/
This app doesn't yet contain the mediations you talk about of checking the sw code against a 3rd-party reference and warning when an update doesn't match the reference.
Even considering the limitation you discuss when the new worker terminates async requests of the old worker, checking a public log is useful -- do you have any code or boilerplate I could plug in to achieve that?
Also, would the following be useful? The worker stores the 3rd party log / reference at intervals in local storage, and then when updatefound occurs, it doesn't need to make a network request, it can check (not perfectly) if the new sw code matches the stored reference. Sometimes there will be false negatives because the reference updated before the sw checked, but I think there would be no false positives. As long as the new worker can't get to localstorage before the old one checks, could be okay.
TL;DR - treat this as you would home-made beer from someone you don't know. You'd probably hold it at arms length, have a smell, and maybe try the taste...but you wouldn't start selling it in your hip bar without knowing anything about it!
Anyway, hope others interested in crypto can enjoy this. I am not a crypto-expert, just a moderately-talented-at-crypto-hobbyist, or somethin. Code: https://github.com/dosyago-coder-0/dosycrypt
The form is just a mailto form to test how mailto links are handled in your browser / setup.
The real purpose is to use the bookmarklet at the bottom of the page on GMail.
The real question is why didn't I just change it and make it more clear? I don't know. I like mailto / protocol forms. They're pretty cool. Sending data from browser to almost anywhere, not just HTTP POST and GET. I really like that. One reason is it signals the vast affects you can have with something so simple as plain old HTML.
Ok, I'll make the font-size of the Bookmarklet bigger. Done
Edit: I also noticed the Runkit site is slow sometimes. Here is a CodePen version in case anyone needs it: https://codepen.io/dosy/full/aLMOBQ
This is the type of crime, that by definition, nobody who has the power to investigate wants to investigate.
This most likely was payback for exposing someone's offshore holdings, and the response was chosen to send a message: "Do not expose", and was done in such a bald-faced way that this crime's occurrence presupposes the existence of the very corruption needed to facilitate getting away with it, that any investigation would need to uncover.
TL;DR - that a crime like this, which requires corruption to execute and get away with, can happen, presupposes the investigative apparatus is unable to investigate it, with high probability.
- Accumulation of many titles, not always held by the General Secretary. Sometimes this is Xi gaining a title of an already existing leadership group, sometimes he has created new groups, such as the "Central Commission for Integrated Military and Civilian Development" ( which is about funding military industries, sort of like the US military-industrial model ). Titles like this mean he has effective policy control over many branches of China's administration. His ability to create new groups shows his ability to reform the bureaucratic hierarchy.
- Anti corruption campaign, restore legitimacy in party with regard to people's opinions, level some playing fields, purge the party of corruption and also strengthen ideological and political support for Xi.
- Xi has been called "The Core", this term was only ever used for Mao and Deng.
- Anti-corruption has also focused on military. Result seems to be Xi has greater control of and greater loyalty from the military.
- The PLA garrison in HK broke tradition this year to address Xi as "Chairman", instead of "Commander" --a first. Perhaps this reflects that while usually the leader also Chairs the Central Military Commission, as Xi does, Xi's power is less figurehead and more effective.
- Xi has achieved many things internationally that have not been done by China ever: first overseas military base, in Africa; taking control of disputed islands in its coastal waters in defiance of neighbours; creation of the ambitious, "One Belt One Road", infrastructure, trade and investment project, to expand China's influence along a "new silk road" Westward; and exercised tighter control over old and new media, with very effective online censorship.
- In summary, he does a lot, has made many changes, is always in the news cycle as an effective leader, and has presided over a very successful period for China both with regard to domestic growth and stability, and international standing and ambitious expansion.
You're right I do think there is great harm from wrongspeech. A lot of people think this as well, and there is already alot of social pressure ( good term ) used to police speech on Twitter, blogs, IRL, etc. And there is already some legislative allowance to police narratives that cause harm, specifically, I think regarding hate/terrorist speech ( I'm thinking UK ).
I don't think the risk is zero, the risk of getting any of this wrong is catastrophic. But I do think the risk is manageable. The reason it's manageable is because we can keep revising our notions through keeping the conversation going, as is currently happening. And we can keep mitigating effects through checks and balances.
So I think all this is very good, but it's not enough. Why?
To become truly effective, we need to spread from minority-awareness to majority-awareness of these issues. We need to start debating and discussing these ideas en masse. We already have "people in power" ( social power ) deciding the best way to speak, and now that these notions have moved out of the fringe and academia and into the mainstream, and are being applied to ordinary discourse IRL, we need to have everybody getting in on the conversation and debate. Otherwise how can these concepts truly become effective? These norms have to apply to and reflect and get buy-in from everybody, not just people who are working to change society. And the law is how you apply a norm universally.
Second to this, I think it's good optics. It shows we ( in the West / in America ) have the courage of our convictions, and crucially, I think, it sets a good example for the rest of the world, showing that America still has moral authority, by crystallising some of the paramount achievements of its social justice and security movements in delineating forms of speech that cause harm. It could be helpful if these people are rewarded and supported by the institutions which have for so long disenfranchised them, by having their hard work encoded in legislation. Some progress is already being made in places like Canada and Sweden, and especially in the UK. So I think your view that we are still in the "social pressure only" period is a little naive. It's already happened. It just isn't complete yet. All I'm really advocating for, I think, is that we use the already shifting tide toward legislative remedy to increase debate converation and engagement on these issues across society.
So in a sense, the controversy and discussion we are having about these, even in this thread on HN, is exactly what's needed.
I agree there is a disconnect with many on HN, or in SV, or in USA on the specifics of these issues, even tho these demographics are predominantly liberal ( I think ). We still have campus sexual assault, workplace sexual misconduct, and then there's always the not so harmful stubborn libertarians in tech. But I think there is alignment on the heart of these issues. So I'm trying to address the resistance to that. I mean, maybe the majority still doesn't see the value in policing of wrongspeech even after years of social justice activism and engagement, but that's why more work needs to be done.
I think that it's still a hotbutton issue, and there is still social inertia to discuss it openly because of how uncomfortable it can be, so I think that people who support these issues are staying silent on this thread. Also this discussion is quite meta so people may not be sure how to come into it, even if they are normally active in social justice or social safety. And if HN really disagreed with these notions outright, I'd except dozens of downvotes and it to be flagged into invisibility. There have actually been upvotes and downvotes, and the down has won narrowly. Maybe that means majority HN disagrees, or maybe we're still just uncomfortable to talk, or it could just be a small sample?
But even if HN is against this in the majority, the trend outside HN is clear. Social pressure is widespread, legislation is already happening, now is the time for mass social engagement, discussion, and debate. People need to feel involved in the conversation in order to buy-in and for these notions to become effective and applied universally.
Look, at the end of the day, maybe I'm absolutely and totally wrong. And maybe Orwell foresaw our future with all its nuanced and intersectional issues and complications. And maybe everyone on this side who are already tirelessly policing wrongspeech online and IRL are wrong, too. Maybe we'll all look back and cringe, or laugh, or whatever, at this time. But that's why we need to expand the conversation. Wrong and right will be decided by the collective. Maybe we can't say how this will play out.
I get the innate resistance to policing wrongspeech, but there's also a lot of existing buy-in to these ideas we can work with already regarding this demographic ( geek feminist code of conduct for OS projects, for example ) and I think for this demographic there's actually more to like about it than it seems at first. I put a lot of the gut rejection of this trend to the easy association with 1984, and how that prematurely suffocates thinking and debate, "Oh my god, it's like 1984 Orwellian dystopian nightmare, run!" But if we don't create a more fair and safe society by policing the speech that supports violence, hatred and harm, don't we end up with our own kind of nightmare? Maybe no genius lit dude has written that dystopia famously, but it might be just as scary and as horrible a place to be. At least I think so.
I just want to apologise for the length. Sometimes I find it takes too much effort to condense and maintain meaning. I'm really sorry.