There's even a JS implementation of XSLT 3.0 already (SaxonJS).
That's pretty cool, its too bad the license is a bit confusing about whether bundling with Chrome or Firefox would be permissible under the license.
Readit Newswebstrand commented on "Remove mentions of XSLT from the html spec" github.com/whatwg/html/pu... · Posted by u/troupo
webstrand commented on "Remove mentions of XSLT from the html spec" github.com/whatwg/html/pu... · Posted by u/troupo
So if in reading the two threads correctly essentially Google asked for feedback, essentially all the feedback said "no, please don't". And they said "thanks for the feedback, we're gonna do it any way!"?
The other suggestions ignored seemed to be "if this is about security, then fund the OSS, project. Or swap to a newer safer library, or pull it into the JS sandbox and ensure support is maintained." Which were all mostly ignored.
And "if this is about adoption then listen to the constant community request to update the the newer XSLT 3.0 which has been out for years and world have much higher adoption due to tons of QoL improvements including handling JSON."
And the argument presented, which i don't know (but seems reasonable to me), is that XSLT supports the open web. Google tried to kill it a decade ago, the community pushed back and stopped it. So Google's plan was to refuse to do anything to support it, ignore community requests for simple improvements, try to make it wither then use that as justification for killing it at a later point.
Forcing this through when almost all feedback is against it seems to support that to me. Especially with XSLT suddenly/recebtly gaining a lot of popularity and it seems like they are trying to kill it before they have an open competitor in the web.
It would be incredible if we could pull it into the javascript/wasm sandbox and get xslt 3.0 support. The best of both worlds, at the cost of a performance hit on those pages, but not a terrible cost.
webstrand commented on "Remove mentions of XSLT from the html spec" github.com/whatwg/html/pu... · Posted by u/troupo
Despite rather heated discussion just three weeks they started just two weeks prior https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/11523
Looks like they're going to ram it through anyway, no matter the existing users. There's got to be a better way to deal with spam than just locking the thread to anyone with relevant information.
I'm a little confused by the cutesy animal pictures on the first page... The only one that doesnt have some kind of lambda scribbled on them is the one that is directly lambda calculus, and I can't work out what some of the other symbols are even meant to be...
I'm pretty sure they're AI generated art, I don't think the symbols are intentional or have any meaning. They're basically ornamental section dividers.
This is the chance that given a specific guid, that you'll find a collision for it. Utterly minuscule chance. However birthday paradox controls, if you generate 2^62.60 guids the chance that you've generated a collision is around 99%. Still enormously unlikely, but way smaller than 2^122.
At a rate of comparing 400,000 guids per second, you have a 99% chance of seeing a collision within the next 553,750 years.
webstrand commented on Dicing an Onion, the Mathematically Optimal Way pudding.cool/2025/08/onio... · Posted by u/surprisetalk
Remove from the motor/base, separate parts, spray with water and toss in the dishwasher. And wouldn't you have to clean the cutting board and knife anyway?
The most important part: much less eye watering.
That works for the housing, but not for the blade which usually gets food jammed up in every little crevasse. You can't stick those in the dishwasher because it'll dull the cutting edges. Washing the knife and board is trivial by comparison.
But I don't really have trouble with my eyes with onions, that may be the deciding factor.
webstrand commented on Dicing an Onion, the Mathematically Optimal Way pudding.cool/2025/08/onio... · Posted by u/surprisetalk
webstrand commented on Arch shares its wiki strategy with Debian lwn.net/SubscriberLink/10... · Posted by u/lemper
When did this happen? I haven't seen anything about it online
From what I can gather, the event happened in 2008. At the time gentoo had no official wiki, it was an unofficial wiki that died or went offline for a significant amount of time.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20081023145740/http://www.gentoo...>
And when it came back online in november,
> Gentoo-Wiki recently had it's database lost; this is the rewrite of the site
<https://web.archive.org/web/20081204053828/http://en.gentoo-...>
Empathy biases reasoning toward in-group cohesion, overriding dispassionate reasoning that could threaten group unity.
Empathy is not required for logical coherence. It exists to override what one might otherwise rationally conclude. Bias toward anyone’s relative perspective is unnecessary for logically coherent thought.
[edit]
Modeling someone’s cognition or experience is not empathy. Empathy is the emotional process of identifying with someone, not the cognitive act of modeling them.
> Modeling someone’s cognition or experience is not empathy.
then what is it? I'd argue that is a common definition of empathy, it's how I would define empathy. I'd argue what you're talking about is a narrow aspect of empathy I'd call "emotional mirroring".
Emotional mirroring is more like instinctual training-wheels. It's automatic, provided by biology, and it promotes some simple pro-social behaviors that improve unit cohesion. It provides intuition for developing actual empathy, but if left undeveloped is not useful for very much beyond immediate relationships.
Some would argue empathy can be a bad thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Empathy
As it frequently is coded relative to a tribe. Pooh Pooh people’s fear of crime and disorder for instance and those people will think you don’t have empathy for them and vote for somebody else.
It feels like he just defines empathy in a way that makes it easy to attack.
Most people when they talk about empathy in a positive way, they're talking about the ability to place oneself in another's shoes and understand why they are doing what they are doing or not doing, not necessarily the emotional mirroring aspect he's defined empathy to be.