Readit NewsAnnoyingly, EPUB isn't inherently self-contained [1], but external access is explicitly optional [2], and it does make self-containment easier, because you can reuse resources across multiple pages, whereas HTML requires you to either duplicate the resources across multiple pages, or you have to build your thing as a single massive HTML page.
[1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/epub/#sec-resource-locations
[2]: https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-rs/#sec-epub-rs-network-access
Why not HTML? Why not Markdown? They aren't self-contained.
* A web page written in either format can leak your IP address to external bad actors because of the way inline images work.
* Loading resources from more than one server is a reliability and security problem, and it performs bad on initial load (it's great for subsequent loads, since external resources can be cached, but initial load time is bad and tech designers should really spend more time thinking about worst-case perf than about average-case).
* Downloading a web page is overly complicated. I should be able to download a page to my computer and never have to worry about the origin server going away, and that's not possible on the HTML5 web. This is one of the main reasons for the enduring popularity of PDF. IPFS, in particular, would benefit from a self-contained document format, because it needs to know the full set of dependencies in order to pin a page as a whole, and ensure that you don't accidentally pin an HTML file without pinning its images and wind up with a broken site.
Sure, you can make HTML pages that are self-contained, but because they aren't always, people don't build workflows around them.
Why not Gemtext/Gemini?
* Nobody but nostalgic nerds cares about simplicity of implementation. I mean, come on, Markdown is even harder to parse than HTML is! Nostalgic nerds might be a worthwhile demographic to appeal to, but I think IPFS wants a wider audience than that.
* Inline images are not optional. Too many great creators with a lot of worthwhile things to say are either creative artists or technical artists. In the BBS era before inline images were practical, it didn't stop people from drawing; they just relied in ANSI and ASCII art, and "let's go back to typewriter art" only appeals to nostalgic nerds.
* And once you have inline images, you have to offer rich text layout features like tables, otherwise people will start posting pictures of text to work around your missing features (which sucks for either accessibility, because blind people can't read them, or it sucks for simplicity, because deploying OCR is even more complicated than just offering decent text layout).
If I had to pick something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPUB
* You can download an EPUB, and when the original host goes away, it still works! Pinning an EPUB in something like IPFS can work without requiring the CDN to know anything about the file format, since EPUBs are self-contained.
* Tooling already exists. It's just XHTML in a ZIP file anyway, but there's also EPUB-specific tooling (for example, the Texinfo release announcement a few days ago mentioned that you can export EPUBs from GNU info manuals).
* It supports text and image layouts that writers demand.
* There is one standard.
Which is not exclusively an argument for runtime JIT— it can also be an argument for instrumenting your runtime environment, and feeding that profiling data back to the compiler to help it make smarter decisions the next time. But that's definitely a more involved process than just baking it into the same JavaScript interpreter used by everyone— likely well worth it in the case of things like game engines, though.
This guy is just doing the typical religious yelling about people doing their jobs (writing kernels, drivers, browsers, games, etc) with the most flexible tool for programming we've developed to date.
Maybe one day Rust will become dominant. Maybe someone will overhaul the aliasing rules of C, write some similar lifetime tracking tooling, and it will live on for another 50 years. Who knows. The reason people still use C and C++ isn't because they're good languages (or even that people like them, as the comment states), it's that until recently there have been very few viable alternatives, and for some domains literally none at all. They've largely been the only option for a long time.
Thinking along, could we perhaps rather vote on things that worry us, instead of people (or sometimes just a color) that may (likely not) do something about it? E.g. salary of teachers, climate change, etc.
And then every law/change has to be derived from that “wishlist”. Because political programs, while originally similar, have been misused greatly. It is still prone to abuse, but perhaps it would increase accountability of politicians and decrease the amount of laws that are only meant to distract the public from something much worse in the background. But surely everyone wants “free beer and immortality” (the program of a joke party where I live), so it would likely fail for other reasons, but a more direct democracy also has the shortcome of.. well, dumb people.
Obviously, they are subject to all the typical "push polling" weaknesses, where people can be coaxed into voting a certain way using manipulative wording.
Taste is a manifestation of beauty and beauty in all forms is universal and hypnotic and skill-independent. Babies, animals, 80 year old grandmas, all incapable of executing, all still respond to beauty. Beauty instantiates itself in different "tastes" of the day, maybe, but there is no act of beauty that becomes ugly over time. There are buildings from across the world 500 AD we consider beautiful and even try to emulate today. Execution has very little to do with this; you don't need to be a bricklayer to appreciate the pretty brick building from 16th century London.
The people who are most incapable of having good taste are generally not the unskilled people - those actually instinctively orient themselves to beauty when they encounter it - far from it, it is the seething subset of lesser skilled people who resent their inability to produce something of beauty and respond crabs-in-a-bucket style by taking true beauty down a notch. It is pompous art gallery types that will try to persuade you that the signed toilet bowl is "akshually art", worthy of being preserved in museums next to Caravaggio.
Imagine presenting the original version of King Lear to someone who doesn't know English. It's beautify poetry, I won't argue that, and our hypothetical listener might even be able to detect the rhythm of its iambic pentameter buried under the seemingly-gibberish words, but they won't appreciate it on the same level as someone who actually speaks the language. And while they'd be able to get the story if it was translated, it would lose the rhythm unless the translator recreated it, at which point you've got a new work of art.
Similarly, nobody's going to be able to appreciate the Git data model unless they've already got a solid sense of algorithmic thinking, and preferably the background knowledge of filesystems to know what problem it's actually trying to solve. Or the Quicksort algorithm to someone who doesn't even know what a recursion is.
(Some anal-retentive postmodernist would probably argue that there is, in fact, a language to physical architecture, and that if you don't speak it, you won't get it. The problem is that the only way I know of to test that would be to find someone with zero experience with human-made structures, which seems impossible. I see no real purpose in arguing this point, because when it comes to algorithmic beauty, there is definitely a skill floor below which you just won't get it.)
> To fuel an ecosystem of products and technology that respect users
Bring back the XUL extensions!
https://cdn.fosstodon.org/media_attachments/files/108/556/56...
Source for the "XUL Deprecated in August 2015" date: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-dev...
Source for the browser stats over time: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BrowserUsageShare.pn...
It seems to me that once people know that something exists, which is possible through way more methods than the constant cognitive assault of our advertising-based culture, then they can do just fine at figuring out if the thing is useful to them.
But yeah, keep gloating about how dumb people are for not just wanting a better version of what works.
If horses are more "pro-social" than cars, it's because the only people who could afford them are the very wealthy and people who made their living riding horses like cowboys and taxi drivers. Cars are "worse" than horses because they're too superior, which means the middle class all own personal cars and have stopped financing public transit and pedestrian-friendly city layout that the lower classes would coincidentally benefit from.