lyxsus

6 ms·

1.
by lyxsus 11mo ago
Why not? It may be stupid, but I'm buying it if material feels right to my skin.
2.
by lyxsus 1y ago
Is Hamas and Iran yours?
3.
by lyxsus 1y ago
UNRWA is compromised as hell, ofc it must go, so it's a pretty good use case for ethical ads usage. Definitely not a reason to enforce an additional censorship.
4.
by lyxsus 2y ago
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Remote: Yes Willing to relocate: Depends Technologies: JavaScript/TypeScript, NodeJS, React, Graphl, Relay, Apollo, Nextjs, Python, Postgres, Mongodb, Couchdb, Dynamodb and etc and etc. AWS&
5.
by lyxsus 3y ago
This is incredible. I really want it to take off.
6.
by lyxsus 4y ago
omg. ok, adopting some F features is an interesting idea. but why are they trying to make that thing with syntax happen?
7.
by lyxsus 4y ago
tbh, tailwind feels like the worst thing that happened to frontend dev since coffee script.
8.
by lyxsus 4y ago
> semantic web forcing everything into a single schema I don't think "forcing" is the right word here, I think the right one would be "expects it to converge under practical incentives". That's a more gentle
9.
by lyxsus 4y ago
Oh, I would like to see a look on your face when just in about 100-200 years from now it will be mature enough for a "web scale".
10.
by lyxsus 4y ago
Understood, thank you. Yes, that's not solvable with just OWL (though it might help a little) or any other popular reasoners I know. There're papers, proposals and experimental implementations for generating probability-based infe
11.
by lyxsus 4y ago
so if it tries to have a unified ontology that's why it's destined to fail, but if it's designed to working with many small ontologies… that's why it will fail! lol, but you can't have it both ways. In SW, the &quot
12.
by lyxsus 4y ago
That's a valid point, but I'm not sure, the following problem has a technical solution: > Clear indicators the owl author didn't know the domain
13.
by lyxsus 4y ago
There're a lot of wrong perspectives on the topic in this thread, but this one I like the most. When someone starts to talk about "agreeing on a single schema/ontology" it's a solid indicator that that someone needs
14.
by lyxsus 4y ago
Isn’t it similar to linear types in haskell?
15.
by lyxsus 4y ago
We’re not, but your point is still valid.
16.
by lyxsus 5y ago
If you open specification linked to that page ( https://wicg.github.io/sanitizer-api/#sanitizer-api ), you'll see that Sanitizer constructor accepts config param, that does exactly that and will probably extended
17.
by lyxsus 5y ago
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia Remote: Yes Willing to relocate: Yes Technologies: Javascript/TypeScript, React (Relay/Redux/Apollo), Postgresql/Mysql/NoSQLs, K8S, Python Résumé/CV: http://lyxsus.
18.
by lyxsus 6y ago
As a non-US citizen, I have 3 questions: 1. WTF 2. Is it even enforceable? 3. Does anybody know recent examples?
19.
by lyxsus 6y ago
> However, there now exist a number of contexts in which namespace prefixes can impart information value in an XML document. Well, yeah. They've given up to a mass amount of half-ass implementations? So what? I think it's our m
20.
by lyxsus 6y ago
I would say use XML Schema at least. DTD looks alien to XML anyway.
21.
by lyxsus 6y ago
It doesn't affect data model encoded in document even a tiny bit. Namespace prefixes are irrelevant. If changing these prefixes breaks the program, the program is incorrect.
22.
by lyxsus 6y ago
Well, yeah, true. I believe it's mostly implementation and popularisation problems. The w3c specs surrounding xml/xpath/xslt/rdf and etc are very well designed but it's possible to appreciate them only after you spe
23.
by lyxsus 6y ago
> That doesn't seem accurate at all. It would be the case if there was some deterministic abbreviation from URL namespace qualifiers down to namespace prefixes, but there is not; I'm not sure what you mean by that, tbh. It seem
24.
by lyxsus 6y ago
What do you suggest to use instead? It's a bit too early to use RDF, people haven't catch up yet.
25.
by lyxsus 6y ago
> This breaks people's mental models of how XML works, and correspondingly, breaks people's code that manipulates XML. Because they usually have incorrect mental model. Blaming namespaces for name ambiguity would be the same as
26.
by lyxsus 6y ago
Sure, but what’s the end goal here? I just don’t get what prevents the history to repeat itself if it lifts off. And considering current web, which of these problems are technically unsolvable at the moment? We can have privacy-aware browse
27.
by lyxsus 6y ago
Why?
28.
by lyxsus 6y ago
> I believe all data warehouses are limited by the quality of their data model. wrt that, what do you think about Solid from Tim Berners-Lee? (solidproject.org)
29.
by lyxsus 6y ago
Why don’t you just quote the word “by”? I agree with the word “by”. I fully support it and appreciate how precise and representative it is with respect to the topic. Thank you for walking that path with me, I am defeated by your debating sk
30.
by lyxsus 6y ago
In general. In general what? You can't take an advantage of having an abundant amount of data about data sources, schema and query you're about to execute (in general)? The original example simply illustrates that if you have the

More ›