It's full of ads (at least 80% of the screen as you scroll) and auto-playing videos that prevent me from reading in normal, logical order. I don't think they even realized the meta irony of posting an enshittification article that is, itself, enshittified. What the hell happened to Ars Technica? And Slashdot for that matter?
I have done exactly the same thing, also since 1999, and I've also been faced with the same issue. My conclusion is that the benefit of continuing to understand all of my code is greater than the benefit of attempting to standardize it with someone else's framework. The problem with using a framework is, in my opinion, (1) not understanding fully how it works, and (2) not being able to just take a blank file and write a script into it-- and (3) what if the framework falls out of favor or someone pulls the plug on supporting or updating it? There is no substitute for being able to hand-code PHP from a text editor, which results in a deep understanding of the LAMP stack and many other benefits. Lately I have hired a new software engineer and tasked him with learning this method of writing code, and he says it's a wonderful experience because now he understands how a web application really works. I also have code that has run perfectly for many years, and it would take a lot of person-hours to convert it. So my vote is no, don't bother transitioning your code to a framework.
My whole challenge with a recent computer vision project is maximum performance, and we initially chose C++ and x86 assembly because we simply don't think that interpreted Python is fast enough for what we need to do. If what they are saying in their product unveiling post is all accurate, in addition to having high performance, Mojo will save a large amount of time and money by letting us recycle existing Python code and knowledge instead of essentially creating new C++ and assembly code. Chris has an amazing track record and this new project shows leadership in the field. Can't wait to try it.
You are absolutely correct.
This case is in the less than 1% of cases where the victim's family can afford to do something. This investigation lasted three years and cost the family more than $100,000 for two lawyers and a substantial amount of work during that time.
One idea I broached to the state Attorney General, whose office I've been corresponding with, is publishing a web page about this statute that explains the process. At least that way, the family has the option of doing a GoFundMe and then hiring a lawyer to execute this model.
Long-term (1998-present) user here. Will try to answer your questions.
> What do long-term Slashdotters think of the changes over time?
Due to the stagnation of Slashdot (going from 1,000+ comments on popular stories to 20-50), Reddit seems to have captured much of the Slashdot audience by offering a more user-friendly system, as well as hyper-specialized subreddits that address every area covered by Slashdot. Example: Reddit lets any user post a story in almost any subreddit, without moderation. That gives a more "raw and uncut" experience but also gives an organic way of seeing what other people think are hot stories. On Slashdot, the Firehose is useful and seems like an attempt at the same functionality, but it's not the same.
> How would you make Slashdot better?
I would democratize editorial choices on the front page and also make the front page non-linear. The front page is too tied to chronological ordering and not enough based on what is actually popular.
> Was ending what made Slashdot famous in favor of SEO-centric content readily available everywhere else a good thing?
No, that's what made Slashdot great.
> Would you prefer the genuinely techy "News for nerds, stuff that matters" character of Slashdot restored? Do you like it better as a generic news site or something else?
Yes, it is much better as a news for nerds website than trying to be everything to all people.
> What's your opinion of editorial quality in recent years vs pre-2012 Slashdot?
Poor.
> What would you like to tell the owners?
Bring back the old Slashdot.
> Please post at length because most current users have little or no idea of what Slashdot once was.
That's sad. This website is a shell of its former self. I wish I could do something other than write this comment.
By the way, here is the just-unsealed criminal indictment.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrewwatters.com%2F...
Makes for interesting reading.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.andrewwatters.com%2F...
I devoted most of today to reading Dr. Wolfram's blog post and technical papers, and I've had some time to digest this. I am very impressed. Yes, the size of his ego is basically infinite, but it's worth looking past that in order to gain real insight from what he proposes. From the perspective of an enthusiast researcher, at least, this appears to be a groundbreaking discovery in the area of theoretical physics and new ways of looking at many problems. I can forgive that it's also a long-form advertisement for Mathematica (full disclosure: I'm a Wolfram customer for Mathematica).
I interpret his central theory as being that space is a lattice of infinitesimal nodes with relations between them defining "space," which emerge from a simple rule of substitution iterated around 10^500 times since the beginning of the universe. He explains a surprisingly large amount of properties and equations (including Einstein's equations, dark matter, the speed of light, etc.) using only the geometric and relational concepts he describes. It's truly impressive and I strongly believe this work has applications in, among other things, relational databases.
He speculates that our universe is "approximately" three dimensional. That leaves an interesting question. Until reading his persuasive article, I refused to believe that we live in non-Euclidean space. But now I'm not sure anymore. If I had to guess, I think we're going to discover that there are "Pi" dimensions.
He presents a novel theory that "oligons," which would be far smaller than the Planck length, are the source of dark matter halos around galaxies. He believes we are only scratching the surface and are looking at the "big" particles in the Standard Model. He presents arguments for why his estimates of the masses of particles are so small and what it means.
You also get the sense that Dr. Wolfram is seriously dedicated to this cause; he is open-sourcing his research and tools plus internal video documenting the process. I was left with a sense of wonder that there are people like Dr. Wolfram out there who are dedicated enough to spend millions of dollars of their own money proving their research. Fortunately, he still has a lot of good years left and it seems like maybe a fundamental theory of everything is within reach, possibly even within his lifetime. It's obvious he wants to live to see it, and that is great to see.
I have a 8K monitor...here is what the original video looks like at native resolution. Wow! BTW, it only plays properly with GPU acceleration enabled in ffplay (with Nvidia GPU: ffplay -vcodec hevc_cuvid First-8K-Video-from-Space~orig.mp4). Otherwise, it's unwatchable. Here are some screenshots: http://www.andrewwatters.com/r...
There are a lot of stuck pixels in the camera they are using.
I'm in my tenth year of practice in California handling general civil litigation. I can try to share a few key points that won't get me in trouble with my peers or area judges.
-- Every state should implement a PACER-like system where the public has remote access to all court records and can download all the PDFs they want for a small fee, 24/7. PACER/ECF is the Federal system for accessing and filing court documents, and it makes it really convenient when you can review an entire case file without physically going to the courthouse as you have to do in most state courts. The cost of implementing PACER with every state court system would be astronomical, but it would also provide astronomical benefits to the public. For one, the public (or more likely the legal section of the local news media) would be able to verify or refute bullshit public relations statements made by lawyers by reviewing the actual case filings.
-- Absent a full PACER/ECF implementation, every court system in a state should be linked to a centralized repository of searchable metadata instead of the current patchwork of incompatible systems for searching records. In California there are fifty-eight separate counties, each with its own Superior Court. This means each court has its own system for storing and accessing court records. Some aren't even searchable online; you have to go there in person. It makes it really difficult to conduct research on a particular case or client. Also, this is one reason why the private legal providers WestLaw and Lexis have services that I can't do without-- without a unified system, these private providers are the only way to sensibly aggregate and organize judicial opinions.
-- Lawyers should make better use of technology in their practices and lower their hourly rates as a result. I wrote my own calendaring software a few years ago that gave me a fully electronic calendar (until I started using Google calendar, which is a big improvement). I also run a paperless office with no permanent support staff and with a tiny physical office. This means I can make deals on my hourly rate with savvy clients so that we both win, and I can scale my practice appropriately so that I don't make big financial commitments and then not meet them. Some lawyers use electronic practice management software like Rocket Matter. Others find clients on Craigslist. Realistically, this type of technology interaction is one of the only ways to increase access to justice; currently, you have to make well over $100,000 per year to afford an actual lawyer, and even then it is a stretch for most people. Most hourly clients in civil litigation are actually businesses and companies, not individuals, because individuals don't have enough money to pay hourly. What I've observed though is that lawyers who have great technology keep their hourly rates the same and just pocket the extra money. And why shouldn't they?
-- Courts and older attorneys should get with the program in terms of new technology. Currently there is a lot of bureaucratic resistance as well as a generational gap in how lawyers and courts use technology. There are plenty of older attorneys out there who do not even have email, and there are many others who just don't care enough to learn MS Word. After all, if they can just hire support staff to do that, there is no incentive. As older lawyers retire or learn technology, this problem decreases for the profession, but courts are still way behind. There should be rules for judges requiring them to use technology.
-- State legislatures should spend more money on courts, but condition that funding on the use of industrial psychologists or other experts to help design better systems for information management. A local Superior Court that I practice in frequently and that I don't need to name still has physical documents hand-carried between its courthouses and administrative facilities. This is a huge waste of time, money, and effort when a few ScanSnap type machines and automated data processing could completely eliminate that waste. Meanwhile, the California legislature has decreased judicial branch funding by at least a billion dollars in the last few years. This makes access to justice even worse.
-- More people should make use of private judges and juries to resolve cases. A private judge in California, for example, can be any attorney with I believe ten years of practice who the parties agree on. The private judge then conducts the case just as if he or she were sitting in a real courtroom. This is different from arbitration in that private judging retains all of the formalities of the public court system. One reason people don't do this is that the cost of private judging is exorbitant because they have to pay at least $500 per hour just for the judge. The cost of private judges with private juries would be even more exorbitant. Again, use of technology could greatly reduce that cost and increase access.
-- My most important gripe with the current system is that it's not designed to find the truth. It's designed to end disputes by determining which side made the better "showing" of its evidence. Now that science and technology can show us the truth, the system should rely more on the truth instead of which side was more persuasive about facts that might not even be the truth.
I could go on but I would only get myself in trouble.
Testing can show the presense of bugs, but not their absence. -- Dijkstra
