"Replicated across peers in a decentralized manner" could just as easily be written about regular Git. Radicle just seems to add a peer-to-peer protocol on top that makes it less annoying to distribute a repository.
So I don't get why the project has "lost you", but I also suspect you're the kind of person any project could readily afford to lose as a user.
What this is trying to say:
- "peers": participants in the network are peers, i.e. both ends of a connection run the same code, in contrast to a client-and-server architecture, where both sides often run pretty different code. To exemplify: The code GitHub's servers run is very different from the code that your IDE with Git integration runs.
- "replicated across peers": the Git objects in the repository, and "social artifacts" like discussions in issues and revisions in patches, is copied to other peers. This copy is kept up to date by doing Git fetches for you in the background.
- "in a decentralized manner": Every peer/node in the network gets to locally decide which repositories they intend to replicate, i.e. you can talk to your friends and replicate their cool projects. And when you first initialize a repository, you can decide to make it public (which allows everyone to replicate it), or private (which allows a select list of nodes identified by their public key to replicate). There's no centralized authority which may tell you which repositories to replicate or not.
I do realize that we're trying to pack quite a bit of information in this sentence/tagline. I think it's reasonably well phrased, but for the uninitiated might require some "unpacking" on their end.
If we "lost you" on that tagline, and my explanation or that of hungariantoast (which is correct as well) helped you understand, I would appreciate if you could criticize more constructively and suggest a better way to introduce these features in a similarly dense tagline, or say what else you would think is a meaningful but short explanation of the project. If you don't care to do that, that's okay, but Radicle won't be able to improve just based on "you lost me there".
In case you actually understood the sentence just fine and we "lost you" for some other reason, I would appreciate if you could elaborate on the reason.
> The only solution is to require face-to-face proctored exams and not allow students to use technology of any kind while taking the test.
If all my math professors had done this, I never would have earned my computer science degree or my minor in mathematics.
I have an immensely difficult time memorizing formulas and doing math by hand. I absolutely need to be able to prepare notes ahead of time, and reference them, to be able to complete a math test on paper. Even then, I'm a very slow in-person test-taker, and would often run out of time. I've honestly come around to the idea that maybe I have some sort of learning disability, but I never gave that idea much thought in college. So, I didn't qualify for extra time, or any other test-taking accommodations. I was just out-of-luck when time was up on a test.
The only reason I was able to earn my degree is because I was able to take almost all of my math classes online, and reference my notes during tests. (COVID was actually a huge help for this.)
And by "notes", I don't just mean formulas or solutions to example problems that I had recorded. I also mean any of the dozens of algorithms I programmed to help automate complex parts of larger problems.
The vast majority of the math classes I took, regardless of whether they were online or in-person, did not use multiple-choice answers, and we always had to show our work for credit. So I couldn't just "automate all the things!", or use AI. I did actually have to learn it and demonstrate how to solve the problems. My issue was that I struggled to learn the material the way the university demanded, or in their timeframe.
So as an otherwise successful student and capable programmer, who would have struggled immensely and been negatively affected mentally, professionally, and financially, had they been forced to work through math courses the way you prescribe, I'm asking you: please reconsider.
Please reconsider how important memorization should be to pass a math class, how strongly you might equate "memorized" to "learned", and what critical thinking and problem-solving could look like in a world where technology is encouraged as part of learning, not shunned.
One should not memorize in mathematics at the college level. If you understand you don’t need to memorize anything. The memorization that should occur is when you remember certain facts because you’ve done enough problems that your brain “just knows” them.
Anytime students are allowed technology there is massive amounts of cheating. Knowing a certain body of knowledge off the top of your head is important in all areas of study.
> I hope you are not on a jury trying a child rapist and blaming the parents as 100% at fault.
I just want to remind everyone else that saying something like this to another human being is an incredibly ugly thing to do, and it is only because the bar for "acceptable discussions" online is so low (that it's underground) that people feel comfortable saying crazy things like this to each other.
Like, I'll be honest, if someone came at me with this "child rapist" line after I said "Liability should be 100% on the parents", that would be my cue to immediately stop interacting with that person. Less reasonable people would throw their drink in your face for saying something like this, some people would even punch you.
Talking to other people like this is not okay, there are better ways to make your point.
(And no, I do not believe "Liability should be 100% on the parents", but I would never accuse someone of letting a predator off the hook just because they have that opinion.)
The idea that liability should be 100% on the parents is an absolute horrific ugly hacker news only type take.
Hackers love to argue these sort of points into the ground. I'm sick of it. They take these points to absurd lengths.
And yes, these arguments overlap with child protection issues. I'm not a "protect the children" political type, but these types of arguments and derivates show up in a fair bit of ugly stuff.
And no - someone like this who does not believe in third party liability with respect to children should not be on a jury.
Maybe because they can comfortably afford to? Maybe because some people who operate businesses are actually kind and generous? Maybe because this service doesn't cost them much to operate for "small/personal websites"? Maybe because it's a clever way to get more people to pay for the service in the long run, after they initially try it out for free?
This is the weirdest mix of repping for lobster's rights but still shitting on them at the same time. Has real "we should euthanize all the pugs" energy but honestly I'm here for it
I agree with you completely. This blog post could be useful and informative, but its writing is weirdly aggressive and annoying that it becomes way harder to read rather than just roll my eyes at and move on with my life.
It's this kind of writing that is unfortunately endemic in the "internet rationalist" space, which doubly unfortunately has a lot of crossover with users on hn. Hence why you're being dogpiled by the most annoying people online.
More importantly though, writing like this is self-defeating, for the author, for wirecutter, and for everyone else who has to inflict it upon themselves just so the author can get to the point.
There are much better ways to communicate about issues, about anything, if you're actually interested in helping an organization do better ("Wirecutter, let me help you.") or even just want to inform people that wirecutter might not be the most reliable source for product recommendations.
This kind of writing though is about the same tier of bad as the loud and annoying youtube takedown videos where they put somebody "on blast". It doesn't surprise me at all that such writing is equally popular on hn. Outrage drives engagement, no matter how far up their own asses your audience is. (Example one: me and my comment).
> I am not the subject of this ridicule yet I am somehow the recipient of it.
This line though is really what I wanted to write a comment about. I love this. Some weirdos will try to twist this feeling into being "personally offended by reading" but no, your feelings are valid. This kind of writing is exhausting. It's a waste of my time. The author clearly has a point to make, and everyone would be better served if they would just make it and leave the shitflinging out. Could you imagine having to be around someone who communicated this way irl?
All that to say, thanks for sharing. I'll take my beating now.
The author's mastodon account has a couple of examples of the creation process if you go back through their post history a bit. It seems they used Blender for everything (as far as I can tell).
They also posted a lot about the entire process at blenderartists.org, and have apparently been working on this since February 2022!
Right now it seems like using Color to change anything will revert your overall theme from the Customize menu to the white theme. On Nightly this means the new tab page and hamburger menus revert to a white screen. Hopefully that gets changed later on.
Either way this is a very cool feature and Test Pilot is just another reason I like Firefox so much
So I don't get why the project has "lost you", but I also suspect you're the kind of person any project could readily afford to lose as a user.