I haven't seen him mentioned in this thread, but I was introduced to the phenomenal drummer Dave Weckl through Chick Corea and his Elektric Band. In my mind, Dave is the best drummer alive today. The mix of technical and musical skills is super impressive. After Dave played with Chick and the Elektric Band he's done several albums and is all over the place sharing his gift with folks from around the world. Look him up, you won't be disappointed.
It's fun because as a drummer not that much into jazz or fusion I got introduced to Chick Corea through Dave Weckl (which yes is the best drummer alive and maybe of all time) :)
Consequently, I'm currently watching this one because my first reflex this morning was to type "Dave Weckl Chick Corea" on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-XZu8DBLSs
And speaking of Dave Weckl I can't resist posting this one with the late Didier Lockwood https://youtu.be/K-R9u-1R1FI
This is why I think it's so important that the internet begins moving towards decentralization soon.
Much of the censorship and top-down control we're witnessing today will only get worse while there's no bittorrent-like or blockchain-like decentralization.
Ok, but lets not forget how a few actors can spoil a healthy community. Remember Kuro5hin? Very healthy and thriving community destroyed by a handful of stupid trolls.
Have been following one of the decentralized web approaches, don't remember, netsomething dot net, runs in the browser, very nice interface. Started promising until it got swamped with right wing lunatics doing nothing but trolling and spewing antisemitic stuff all over the place. I am not even offended, it is just a waste of my time to wade thru this trash to find some meaningful conversation.
Any unmoderated community is going to attract these lunatics.
The only places where I find meaningful conversation are topic centered Forums.
Anything sans topic turns into a burning dumpster when unmoderated. This is humanity. The lunies get their voices amplified and the sane fall silent.
I have been a diehard user of the Vivaldi browser for a while now. I just posted the referenced article to their forum stating that Vivaldi should follow suit. Without such support I'll likely change to Brave specifically due to IPFS support.
The internet is in desperate need of decentralization.
We would love for you to download Brave and give the emerging IPFS support a spin. Any feedback you have about expectations and experience would be greatly appreciated.
Most browsers have great support via the IPFS Companion ( https://docs.ipfs.io/install/ipfs-companion/ ) and that is better since it is easy to have an IPFS node running locally since it is quite efficient.
Seconding this. Unless something's changed, my experience with the default Go daemon they provide was shock at how much resources it consumed in the background. It was something like 12% CPU usage while doing nothing at all for hours on end - I wasn't even accessing any ipfs content.
Yeah I just tried downloading the latest version and it looks much better now. I remember I tried ~3 years ago or so and it was horribly inefficient, so I deleted it, then gave it another shot around a year ago and came to the same conclusion.
But yes, from running it ~10 minutes just now, it looks quite reasonable.
Yeah, they did improve it recently (within the past year or so). I see that Brave uses a gateway by default, I guess that's good for adoption but bad for decentralization. Then again, users don't care about decentralization as much as they care about convenience, so that's a good first step.
> Of the three layers, only the UI layer is closed-source. ... The Vivaldi UI is truly what makes the browser unique. As such, it is our most valuable asset in terms of code.
Being able to contribute to ui code, or to customize ui without going through the minified code would be the main benefit of browser being open source. For discouraging forks, using a non-permissive license for js code, would be as effective as minification.
I'm also a big fan Vivaldi and have been pretty vocal about it. Thanks for taking the time to make this request. I've added a comment of support, so the demand for this has literally doubled in 15 minutes!
> and a few months of rent amnesty for everyone (including businesses) (it's not like houses will disappear if somebody doesn't pay the rent).
This is being proposed where I live. I'm curious to know who, in this situation, pays the owners of the rental properties for the use of the house, for the expenses and maintenance, for the employees, plumbers, electricians, and contractors, etc. And what about lost profits due for the assumption of the risk of buying properties for the purpose of providing homes for people to live?
What's frustrating is that very many sites know of this method and simply trim the "+uniqueid" from a gmail.com address before inserting it into their database.
Pay for your email address to solve the problem. On my email provider, I can create a catchall alias: *@example.com will end up in my johndoe@example.com mailbox.
So, instead of doing johndoe+hn@example.com, I can do hn@example.com.
If your email provider does not offer a catchall alias option, this is also achievable with an email forwarder (e.g. mailgun), provided you are ok with giving another service provider access to the content of your received mails.
> So, instead of doing johndoe+hn@example.com, I can do hn@example.com.
Fastmail has an interesting variation of this that supports multiple users on the same domain: hn@johndoe.example.com. My wife and I both use that feature heavily on our domain.
That's a bummer. FWIW there are a fair number of non-gmail domains that are gmail-backed (e.g. a lot of universities' email systems) so it should still work with those consistently I hope.
>What's frustrating is that very many sites know of this method and simply trim the "+uniqueid" from a gmail.com address before inserting it into their database.
Unfortunately, there is a mathematical theorem (greater idiot theorem) that makes it technically impossible to generate a new random string that becomes an inbox that goes to your inbox.
How do I know that it's technically impossible?
Because otherwise Gmail would have done it already, since this takes 20 minutes and fixes a glaring security issue that gives spammers access to your email that you didn't grant.
I can't have an IQ 50 points higher than all Gmail engineers, so it must stand to reason that I'm the greater idiot. Hence there must be something preventing this obvious solution. QED.
yes. But that doesn't mean it's possible, or Gmail would be doing it too. they have PhD's and stuff. (or used to).
so for sure it isn't possible for some reason, even if someone else is doing it.
what other explanation can there be? why would they just have a glaring security hole like that, allowing anyone you try to give a trackable email to with + to just remove it with a regex? It doesn't make sense. there must be some reason it can't work.
Even though I'm not French, not Catholic, not Christian, and have never been to Europe, yesterday I felt this overwhelming sadness and embarrassment about this fire. I was embarrassed that after so many centuries it was my generation that couldn't manage to keep the Cathedral safe.
Though seeing those first pictures yesterday, with the cross glowing as it was, gave me a sense of okayness. "We" responded quickly to a super-unfortunate accident and I believe, based on several sources of comments/Twitter that I've been reading, that we'll be able to rebuild it.
I strongly believe that two-hundred years from now the history books will refer to "The fire of 2019" as a powerful entry of resurrection in the long history of the Cathedral.
I don't, however, like how the UI/UX is implemented. In particular, the management of containers -- why do I have to dig so deeply to add new containers? Also, as a color-blind person, the slightly colored thin bar above the tab is not a sufficient identifier. It just seems all sort of after-thoughty and jumbled to me.
Having said that, I converted to FF being my primary browser from being a long-time Chrome user and am happy about the change.
It also takes way too many steps to make a site open in a container by default. And there doesn't seem to be any way to manage cookies by container. I'm not even sure what data is showing up in the cookie management preferences page.
Agreed. Container Tabs is fantastic, however the UI needs work. Editing a tab is also pretty awful, you have to navigate to two different areas to tweak all the options.
> This new world driven by the constant emphasis on differences rather than on commonalities is exhausting, frankly.
I know this is technically off-topic and I'll likely be down-voted for an "Amen" post. But, Amen.
I seek, and have yet to find, a venue where folks regularly embrace commonalities, much less celebrate them, while together seeking solutions to society's ills from politically-competing perspectives.
I'm not racist and, as you would expect me to say, have over the years made several close friends of widely-varying races. (As an aside, isn't it part of the problem that I even have to open my comment on this topic by expressing my non-racist bonafides?)
In over two decades of work in corporate as well as entrepreneurial environments, I've not seen a difference in efficacy within groups that would be attributed to being either racially diverse or non-diverse.
For example, if there were three groups working on a given technical project, one composed of all white men, one composed of all Asian women, and one composed of a mix of race and gender, would the diverse group produce a superior result? My experience is that they would not. Sufficiently and equally incentivized and qualified, all groups would likely produce similar results.
So, I'd consider myself as somebody who's "against racial diversity" mainly because I haven't experienced it improving the core competencies of my company -- which is what I care about. Nor have I found compelling research supporting higher performance by more diverse groups. Thus, efforts to improve diversity, for diversity's sake, in my experience, feels like an effort to make a change that's not related, and might even be a distraction, to making my company more effective.
Why do you oppose racial diversity instead of taking no opinion on it? One would think a neutral observer, seeing no difference in efficacy between different types of workplaces, would not oppose one of those types of workplace anyway. The conclusion I make is that the observer is not neutral, but biased.
When you say you're "against racial diversity" you are saying you prefer racial homogeneity. If that's not what you mean, you should rethink how you state your preference. Many people would take that statement to mean that you're an avowed racist.
The problem is that the word "diversity" doesn't actually mean merely having the presence of different races. Nobody who argues for "racial diversity" ceases to argue the moment the first black or Asian person is hired.
Rather, the phrase "racial diversity" has become code for its own kind of racism against white people. It doesn't mean the dictionary definition of diversity, consisting of multiple types. It means specifically eliminating and pushing out white people on the grounds that there are lots of them around in western countries, so harming them in some concrete, objective way isn't really harmful.
Moreover, the tactics normally used to obtain this so-called diversity are usually anti-meritocratic: literally the promotion and rewarding of people who do not deserve it on the basis of their work or skills alone, but just on the basis of skin colour. This is poisonous and demeaning to those people who do work hard, but don't benefit from being born "diverse".
It's really quite sad that this is actually a topic for debate, and that the ever more extreme elements in California have tried to make "meritocracy" a dirty word. But ultimately it'll be to the benefit of companies in other parts of the world who don't care about this strange and poisonous offshoot of political dialogue. I doubt there are many companies in Russia or China that force all employees to spend time on unconscious bias training, or who reliability promote unqualified people because of their DNA.
The argument for technical people is not that a more diverse group per se produces better results (although that argument is made for some other professions, such as marketing). The argument is rather that by restricting the candidate pool based on irrelevant attributes like ethnicity or gender, one is likely to overlook good candidates and thereby reduce the overall competence of the team.
I would expect you to agree with this since you say you haven't observed a systematic difference in performance between these groups. No?
My own thinking is that it's good to invite a diverse applicant pool, but final hiring decisions shouldn't use diversity except as a tie-breaker. At the same time one should try to be aware of one's own biases, and rigorously careful not to devalue candidates unlike oneself.
> While a leader with an engineering mindset works hard at finding at a better solution, other leaders use their personality, power or charm to persuade people that their solution will be in everyone’s benefits, even if it actually isn’t. This is why despite his IQ, Donald Trump got elected as the president of US.
I'm no Trump fan, but have to wonder why, in an article proposing an objective truth, I have to read the author's opinion of Donald Trump -- in this case regarding his IQ.
If the author can prove the lowness of Trump's IQ, I'd love to see the objective proof. Otherwise I would suggest the author stick with his main points and not involve his politics.
Moreover, it's sickening to me to read the veiled insult of the voters (the "even if it actually isn't" statement) who put Trump in office. Again, perhaps the author would consider sticking with his main thesis and avoid denigration of those with whom he clearly disagrees.
