wvenable

25 ms·

451.
by wvenable 1y ago
It's all infrastructure software and not actual applications.
452.
by wvenable 1y ago
It's not parental control; it's governmental control. Yes, parents can bypass it for their children but that doesn't mean it's parental control. When you have to provide your own ID to access a site your parents are no
453.
by wvenable 1y ago
This is no lie: My son brute-forced the parental control pin on his iPhone. For over 6 months, he would just try random combinations while in bed at night. One night, I don't know when, he found the right pin. I'm not sure how l
454.
by wvenable 1y ago
> We no longer live in the era of a single family computer. In that era, there were always other family's computers. > Parents don't know about all devices their children will use to access the internet That's why we ne
455.
by wvenable 1y ago
No solution is perfect but we already have secure boot. It doesn't even have to mandate some pre-approved image; it just has to be an image that I approve and lock. This is already a well solved problem for corporate environments.
456.
by wvenable 1y ago
> Because the age is verified at the time of access; instead of once during initial setup. Is that really how it works? Every single time you visit any website on the Internet or launch any app it's going to age ID you? I don&#x2
457.
by wvenable 1y ago
> That is, until Linux is also forced to come into compliance with said parental control standard, complete with all centralized reporting and remote restriction capabilities. Linux is fine. Someone can build the ultimately perfect pare
458.
by wvenable 1y ago
That's not a major problem. Also, how does age verification fix things in that scenario if a child is using their parents device? If a parent can't be bothered to pin-lock their device or flip it into child mode then there is n
459.
by wvenable 1y ago
> Regardless of whether pornography is, or should be legal, average exposure is now 11 years old. You make it sound like historically it was much later but actually even in the 1980s 11 years old was common. In fact, that matches my own
460.
by wvenable 1y ago
I don't think Github is necessarily full of high quality enterprise Java software, is it?
461.
by wvenable 1y ago
You say that's not true but then you don't contradict what I'm saying. How were browsers able to do anything, while maintaining backwards compatibility, that needed standardizing later?
462.
by wvenable 1y ago
> A recent good reason for using Java is that frontier LLMs are trained with very large amounts of high quality enterprise Java source code. Where did it get it from?
463.
by wvenable 1y ago
> no not at all extensible isn't the same as lenient I never said it was. But lenient provides for extensibility that isn't planned for. The entire evolution of the web is based on that. Standards that were too strict or too
464.
by wvenable 1y ago
> you just have to clearly define how to handle unknown input. That is being lenient. Allowing any unknown input is being lenient in what you accept. Not allowing unknown input at all is being strict.
465.
by wvenable 1y ago
HTML being lenient is what made progressive enhancement possible -- right down the original <img> tag. The web would not have existed at all if HTML was strict right from the start.
466.
by wvenable 1y ago
> Its a fascinating inversion of the early internet problem, where companies who were unwilling to innovate got out-competed. Is it though? There's a reason why Microsoft's JVM competitor is called ".NET". They were
467.
by wvenable 1y ago
The lesson of the article is that backwards compatibility is everything. By sticking with the 486, Intel succeeded fantastically. They even eventually succumbed to building AMD64 compatible chips.
468.
by wvenable 1y ago
Spotify just started doing this. I even have a password saved in my password manager but instead of asking me they just sent an email with a code.
469.
by wvenable 1y ago
The comment was about why CPUs still use byte addressing even today. And it's my belief that's due to incomparably wide proliferation of 8bit computers. Even CPUs that were 32bit with a 16bit data bus, like the 68000 series, requ
470.
by wvenable 1y ago
There was a time, however, where CPUs operated almost exclusively on on 8bit bytes (and had 8bit data buses). Everything else is merely the consequence of that.
471.
by wvenable 1y ago
Then the obstructionists will just always get what they want.
472.
by wvenable 1y ago
Microsoft managed a smoother transition than Python 2.x to 3.x. This kind of thing is very difficult. I don't see any reason to support Mono or .NET 4.56 anymore.
473.
by wvenable 1y ago
> First insanity is figuring out what in the fuck you need to support. Since I no longer support .NET Framework, it's just .NET now. .NET was two platforms for a while and they did a lot of weird stuff to make that work (.NET standa
474.
by wvenable 1y ago
Modern society is based on a pyramid scheme and the cancer of infinite growth. We will burn this planet to the ground to ensure that certain classes of people never lose.
475.
by wvenable 1y ago
We have the money. Wealth is everywhere but as a society it's neither evenly distributed nor compassionately allocated. But that is human nature.
476.
by wvenable 1y ago
I think if it were better supported in the majority of strictly typed programming languages then it would be used more. Most languages make it a big hassle.
477.
by wvenable 1y ago
I rarely have more than handful of try..catch blocks in any application. These either wrap around an operation that can be retried in the case of temporary failure or abort the current operation with a logged error message. Checked excepti
478.
by wvenable 1y ago
When I wasn't producing anything, I didn't have any consumers. But it's a fair point; I think a lot of effort needs to go in to not sound like an AI. I hate low-effort AI content in videos, text, etc. It still takes effort
479.
by wvenable 1y ago
> 4 pages of latex with informative diagrams, flow charts, color-coding, tables, etc. What tool are you using for this? I too have used LLM to do writing that, frankly, I wouldn't have done without it. Often I don't even take
480.
by wvenable 1y ago
Not-writing is infinitely faster than writing. Writing doesn't keep you having to read.

More ›