Please revisit your CMS idea. They're still around, like Kirby and others.
You are right about the old templating systems. I still use them. I still use PHP, it's ridiculously fast and mature. It has a readability unmatched by other languages (for devs like me with design background).
I'm surprised to hear CS people like yourself talking up the old templating systems!
> I hate modern web development.
For me, modern web dev is about modern CSS and JS and native browser APIs and all that fun stuff. It's ironic now with LLMs, the people caught in the grinding gears of MVC bloat are benefiting least from LLM.
Well, perhaps I can't make that claim, but the point is LLMs do a fantastic job at focused, single-layer arrangements such as the good old templating systems, vanilla JS and just direct "old school" frontend coding. Why burden ourselves or the LLM with truck loads of layered dependencies or a million steps to hello world? No need but people get angry on this topic though, so I just do my thing in my corner of the web and deliver results for those I build for.
AngularJS aka Angular v1 was the worst thing I've ever worked with in my career, other than all the BigCo apps I've had to touch that were using it.
Macromedia made ActionScript in 1998 and we still somehow haven't standardized on a good solution to this problem across the industry, everyone just adds ever more layers of abstraction.
Is it really this hard to make a decent GUI lib that runs on bare metal with a good-enough API and a mode to drop to drawing, moving, and applying a texture to triangles in 3 axes if that's what you need?
I actually wrote my own scripting language (Tang... complete with JIT compilation on x86_64 with a bytecode fallback) so that I could have flexible, familiar syntax (cross of C++ and Python) but without the danger of random imports. I built it for my CMS. I just need to get back to it. Again, I may invoke LLMs this time, as all of my previous work was done the old-fashioned way.
A visitor who wants to record will just have a second recording device. Asking nicely to leave the phone behind could only protect from spying the phone owner never intended.
I thought of that, but dismissed the idea due to reality.
In reality, deliberately taking a second recording device other than your phone, escalates intention and risk. If we assume the visitors were unaware of the phone rule before arrival, there's no chance anyone will bring a second recording device.
> A visitor who wants to record...
Will use the recording device they already carry.
If discovered, your phone can hide behind a million excuses. "whoops, I forgot to end my call" or "whoops, I forgot to shut down my streaming app." It can also hide its recording status when using certain covert or custom apps. It is the ultimate recording device able to operate in the open.
To be fair, most phones have invasive Google/Apple/Chinese OEM services that work with high privileges and are invasive on their own, without apps. The share of people using degoogled OSes is small enough to assume it isn't the case. And, to be fair, if someone has a degoogled phone, you'd probably know that by now (I say as also a degoogled user XD)
> "I told the interviewer I already knew the riddle, and I asked for another one."
The question wasn't "do you know this riddle", she just wanted the riddle answered. No need to make it more complicated.
There's no lie in withholding information never asked for. It's possible the request for a new riddle was interpreted as a ploy to get an easier riddle.
Agree with this. Small steps towards the feature. Review, iterate, learn and optimise as you go.
If the project is a mountain, I want AI to assist with the climb so I can learn the mountain, its trails and details. Hitching a free helicopter ride to the summit would leave me with little understanding about the mountain other than the view from the top.
Sounds like you've tried generating such things. You've seen things people wouldn't believe. Inappropriate AI images off the shoulder of Orion, etc.
Now the counter-weight over-compensation. Insisting the tool "doesn't have enough safeguards". Could it be that our AI usage innocence is related to how much we criticise the tool for not policing us enough?
Meanwhile the rest of us have never seen such images because we're not looking for those images, or trying to prompt for those images, or thinking about those images. How about the people using these tools take responsibility, rather than forcing colossal layers of safeguards on everything and everyone?
By your own admission, you've seen it generate such things.
Meanwhile, I've never seen it generate such things because I don't write sicko prompts, and the guardrails in place prevent such images. Most people have never seen it generate such things, but apparently you have. I couldn't be more intellectually honest if I tried.
It started by school kids generating images of their peers.
Researchers and police investigated this -> experts.
People found out (like the researches and investigators) that its very easy to generate this type of content.
Elon Musk himself though absolutly knows about this and how easy is to generate porn. Its his thing, freedom before anything else. Why would anyone tell the richest person on the planet what he can or can't do.
Its disappointing to see that you don't think that the richest person on the planet doesn't need to do more to protect miss use but reframe it like this.
> "mainstream news...cave diver...the world soured on Elon"
Must be stressful maintaining the low quality rhetoric and negativity?
Straight from reddit I presume, to regurgitate tales about cave divers. This is the diver who bizarrely and publicly attacked Musk for trying to help rescue kids from a cave. "Shove his submarine up his rear end" or something. Musk fired back his own stupid words. The court awarded the diver zero dollars. Diver wanted $190 million! Pay day denied! Justice served.
> The real life people I know...
Any real life person who keeps it real, knows the diver was an absolute tool. Attempting to twist history for some kind anti-Musk ammo is a fool's game.
The "addictive" insisting by 2 new ones in short time? Getting bot vibes. "We need to classify social media as an addictive substance" more or less. Is that from someone's e-safety commissioner? Or someone wanting back-pay compo right back to MySpace addiction. An absurd idea.
"Some people can't control themselves around video games therefore video games bad", that's what social media has copped.
"Addictive" might mean a bloody well designed user interface that users like. Making buttons easy to access and responsive feedback and just the right amount of visual cues and spicy labels, all in harmony as designed and delivered via well engineered mechanisms. "Too addictive, you must now jump through regulatory hoops". No!
No, I don't think that it's about buttons and scrolling. It is simply about what the algorithm promotes. If you look at one thing, even if you decide that you don't like it, they show you more to provoke you. The algorithm should be limited to showing followed pages.
Reminds me of the perpetrators of crimes against women who blame what women wear. "She provoked me by showing her ankles! I didn't like it but the next day she was showing me her ankles again!"
Sugar is addictive. TV is addictive. Reading is addictive. Stuff is addictive. Take some responsibility over your own impulses, desires, and life balance. "Govern me harder daddy" isn't something I subscribe to as a method of dampening the addictive forces surrounding us.
But they're not, parents aren't employing the very tooling available right now. SM platforms already have a minimum age, and yet many parents are literally friends with their 8yo childs faked profile
Nobody said you can't. They said the happiness is "decoupled from truth", which isn't ideal if we care about objective health of a society.
Your position seems to imply support for society-level submission to religious dogma. There's no point ignoring actual examples of all these ideas.
Hold an "uncommon belief"? According to you, it's a sign you're wrong. "the world isn't crazy, it's you who's missing something"... and you even say "let people continue being wrong for the sake of being social."
I don't think you meant to express support for strict religious rule and population submission, but that's how I'm reading it.
Your argument supports those who seek submission from the population. You don't require objective truth to play a role in happiness. You have found value in submission that serves to neutralise dissent. Dissent when coming from the few, isn't worth your time. Peg those few dissenters as "probably wrong" and call it a day.
A lot of folks seem to be interpreting my heuristic is if it were a hard and fast rule here. Thats not what a heuristic is.
A heuristic is a mental shortcut that allows for quick decisions based on "most likely" outcomes. Its a statistical tool.
In my case I said it should be enough of an indicator for you to double check your work, not that you were automatically wrong. I stand by that.
That said, you're getting into epistemology now, and its important to differentiate between the observed facts and the biased interpetation of them.
I mentioned before that reproducibility in this way is important to science, and the reason it works with science is that we decouple the observation from the interpetation.
When most people observe that 2+2=4 and you get 5 it is likely that you're wrong. You should invest the time to double check your work.
If 50% of the world then tortures that observation through convoluted and error filled reasoning until they can interpret it to mean magic sky daddy wants you to let the priest touch your special no-no place you should ignore them.
Observed reality being in agreement is a much more reliable heuristic than agreement of interpretation, which is often filled with bias.
> They said the happiness is "decoupled from truth", which isn't ideal if we care about objective health of a society...
Happiness is an emotion. Imagine if I'd claimed society should only be allowed to feel lust on Tuesdays. This is no different. You are allowed to feel however you'd like to feel whenever you'd like to feel it.
Making up arbitrary rules about when you're "allowed " or "deserve" to feel good will make you miserable, and you don't have the right to tell the rest of us we have to abide by your misery making emotion rules.
You might consider asking yourself where this idea that you must meet specific prerequisites before being allowed to feel specific feelings came from, and then seriously considering whether it has merit, or if it even actually works.
Are you also restricting when you're "allowed" to feel negative emotions? How does that work? Are you really able to just... not be sad if you dont deserve it? Do you always feel happy when you DO deserve it?
I think the Protestant ethos is soo deeply embedded in you that you might not even know its there.
Yeah this is the way for sure. The OP forgets that young users advertising their age online with an "orange vest" might not be best idea.
There's almost endless choice of legit quality native apps for kids, curated from trusted sources. These alone far exceed healthy screen time if all were downloaded. Or as you say, curated web links in a locked browser.
How much screen time should kids do anyway, it's crazy how much is available before worrying about WWW on top of their games, apps and videos.
