101–110 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> PS. Which leads me - tangentially - to think that (maybe) the solution to (at least) some of our problems might someday be found in a cult :) The major religions have been beating that dead horse for a long time.
And then resurrecting it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The constraints under which they work are wonderful. Power included. It basically mandates excellence, efficiency.-
The thing is, while it might mandate efficiency, what they made was an un optimized 8 bit VM synthesizing 16bit arithmetic running on 64 bit hardware. It's not efficient at all, it's just that the constraints they gave themselves leaves enormous amount of power on the table.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad this is the best critique we can do.
Brings to mind a comment I saw here the other day observing that some on HN seem to default to a rather "unkind" mode.
The start of this reads like the beginning of a cult manifesto, but then transitions to a very logical solution for an important problem. Baffling. I'm in
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly my feeling.- PS. Which leads me - tangentially - to think that (maybe) the solution to (at least) some of our problems might someday be found in a cult :) Who knows ... > Absurd: So we ported everything over to the NES. This was grand. The NES as a most effective "baseline" platform. Can totally see humanity sending out an NES emulator on Voyager VI as a last gasp.-
I apologize for an off-topic question, but I'm curious why you choose to write "." as ".-". Is it an internet convention I'm unaware of, or maybe punctuation from a language other than English?
Please, vid.:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad this is the best critique we can do.
Brings to mind a comment I saw here the other day observing that some on HN seem to default to a rather "unkind" mode.
That said, it'd be even more cynical to dismiss all of the work and thought that Rek and Devine have put out there because certain elements of it seem a bit hypocritical from a certain point of view. I just spent a couple of hours surfing through their site, reading about their philosophy, and find myself respecting the parts I disagree with almost as much as the parts I identify with. That kind of content is exactly what HN's good for discovering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The search term is "permacomputing" afaik. Here's 100r's (specifically xxiivv's) page on the topic https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/permacomputing.html The first paragraph gives a good overview of the idea: > Permacomputing encourages the maximization of hardware lifespan, minimization of energy usage and focuses on the use of already available computational resources. It values maintenance and refactoring of systems to…
So it's like permaculture but for software.
1. We could have examined each of the 12 Permaculture Design Principle and attempted to directly apply them to software design. For example, "Observe and Interact" is so broadly useful and versatile (and the core of adversarial domains, such as warfare), it can easily be applied to software. You won't see it directly listed here: https://permacomputing.net/Principles/
2. The permaculture ethical principles are not there in full. "Care for life" refers to "Care for Earth", "Care for People", but nothing about "Fair Share". Comparing these two ways of looking at it, I don't see how the permacomputing formulation is an improvement on how the permaculture ethical principles are formulated. Furthermore, I think this has more to do with not sufficiently delving into the place of technologies within a regenerative paradigm. I am speculating here with little basis, but I don't think the people who came up with this got their hands dirty with planting, nurturing, and harvesting things.
However, reading more with 100r, CollapseOS, DuskOS, there is a lot of thought put into this even if I think there are some key things missing from my experience with permaculture.
It is why my friends and I are exploring the ideas of "permatech", what is Technology's full, integrated place within a living systems world view? We have yet to come up with anything coherent yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the general thesis statement is, "there are very few things we do today that couldn't have been done on older hardware".
Which, holds (?) PS. Except for AI, perhaps ... ... I was going to add certain forms of cryptography to that, but then realized that we've always have had some sort of cryptography that was "hardware-appropriate" (ie. sufficiently hard to break, to be useful) for the age. So older hardware was just fine ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The embed has to be changed to YouTube-nocookie (which is what happens when you enable privacy enhance mode when sharing embeds). But that might not entirely comply with GDPR, as Google still does attempt other measures of tracking. So they should either introduce a cookie banner, find an alternative host that more strictly adheres to privacy concerns, or just host the video themselves in a video element.
also you could just embed a self-hosted image that links to youtube. presumably if somebody clicks on the image with the youtube logo on it they know they're going to youtube i mean peertube is a great alternative, and nowadays browsers are pretty okay at just playing bare mp4 files if you re-encode them with ffmpeg -movflags faststart -c copy, but if for whatever reason you choose to use youtube instead there are so…
I’ve done this in the past by literally grabbing a screenshot of the video thumbnail (and the play button) and adding a link to that image.
Sure, it won’t play in the same page and won’t be up to date with thumbnail or other presentation changes but I didn’t care - it was a small image that also didn’t include any executable code or privacy risks.