Interesting, I am a heavy user of vite today and the featureset is interesting but I don't really understand how it will differ from "normal" vite and why I would pay for it.
I was on the conference where it was announced. They plan to finish rewriting all the eslint/tsc/prettier/bundler/nx/minifier stuff in rust and give it single config instead of all of those tools having its own ast parser, alias rules and 5 incompatible babel versions.
If anything, FE tooling starts looking like it moves to more sane place. Also Anthony Fu is cool
Yes but is it worth paying a monthly subscription in order to avoid some config files? I donno. Then you will have the problem in if things go wrong or if you do something very different it's closed source so it won't be easily fixed or prioritized since there is no community.
I dunno really. I'm pretty sure my organization will be willing to cough up the fee.
Me personally -- I would rather see it staying fully opensource and be funded through open collective or EU grants or something, like a lot of core stuff should. The fact this model doesn't work is sad.
I feel that something that the whole FE community gravitates to converge on should stay that way to prevent rag pulls and license dramas, otherwise it sabotages the process of converging on the same set of tools in the first place. Then the whole work will be wasted and eventually the project will die out and we get back to the same mess.
That being said, I get that the problem they are aiming to solve is a big pain point and whoever solves it -- they deserve money, but don't deserve to keep the whole community hostage to their whims indefinitely.
Then again, if people can pay 20 bucks a month for oracle lottery tickets selling infinite wisdom one token at time, why not pay actually helpful people doing great tools.
I think for a company the answer is yes, definitely. A monthly subscription is nothing next to a salary. Not that this will eliminate a whole engineer but... It might. It'll get close, depending on how big the project is.
Well sure, but will there be incentives to keep developing and improving vite? Since they will probably want to have subscribers they will have to do a rug pull and make vite less great than they could've since that is how every saas works.
I like the idea of nostr but when I tried to use it it was a lot of CP which made me instantly stop using it. I guess the issue with this type of protocols is that there must be a way to prevent these very dark and illegal content.
As a user I don't want to see it and the submitter should be found and jailed for distributing it. Right now, it's hard to know where it even comes from since it can come from any of the relay you are connected to. Most apps do not show which relay the content originates from and honestly, what can you do?
I guess one solution is to only use paid relayes or heavily restricted ones that require invitation. But if that is the case, it kind of defeats the purpose of Nostr to begin with IMO.
That statement is wrong at best scenario and fake at worst.
I'm a long time user of NOSTR. When you enter the network through any of the main clients you will only see curated topics (trending). The WoT assures that the best content comes up.
Either of them. I can't even fathom how this would be your first time experience there, other people here on this topic confirm that it doesn't happen.
If you feel that is wrong, please describe the steps to replicate such situation.
What relays were you on? I have never seen CP on nostr.
Did you start off following the crypto spammer mentioned or that was just what caused you to find nostr?
I'd be curious how you built your initial follow list, as that and the relays you were on is the source of what you see. Kind of like if you go to weird ass websites you'll see that content, but nostr itself doesn't expose anything to a user, it's only a network for content read/write.
I did not keep detailed notes, but there were a couple Gists and a couple blogs that listed relays and stuff to follow. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there was bad stuff in thoses lists, but I don't really care about the mechanisms behind it. Easier just to move on.
Sweden has a website called "dumpen.se" which tricks and publishes pedophile that are trying to abuse children.
The leftist media hates this website because they are doing an effective job. They are calling them all kinds of things.
When people are effective in tracking or publishing about pedos, there are always a lot of people saying you are the problem, not the pedos. I wonder why. There are a lot of pedos out there (just look at dumpens work it's kinda obvious) and they are of course using services that are anonymized and decentralized like any other.
Usually they are also very active online and attack people that try to cut their illegal actions online. Just look at my original post, it is downvoted. I just wanted some kind of action towards cutting pedo content and it is frowned upon by these people.
Very much unrelated to NOSTR which is a transparent network with a Web Of Trust enabled as default for users.
It is a grave and unfair accusation to associate NOSTR with such nefarious activities, that was the reason why so many protested against that labelling.
Heck, you can even install NOSTR clients directly from the App and Play store since years.
It is very unbelievable that you followed such a complicated process, even went to effort of deploying to a server (what?!?) and then somehow you see disturbing content without looking explicitly for it.
In case you are sincere, try it again using any of the common methods.
It was years back and I didn't even care enough at the time to take notes on the process. I typed up the how-to partly as a joke because I found it funny some rando was demanding a detailed reproducer for an afternoon of screwing around ages ago.
I did find the client I used; it was called "branle". I'm not in the habit of installing random shit on my iphone, thanks. Deploying things to Netlify is super easy, especially when the software is designed for it explicitly.
I will not be trying again, because as I said elsewhere in the thread, I don't actually care about nostr. Bluesky is working fine for me these days, and in the event that stops being the case, I won't be revisiting the one I already wrote off.
Do you really think somebody would try out a new platform 2 years ago, immediately drop it due to shady stuff and remember all the non trivial steps involved in this process?
> you can even install NOSTR clients directly from the App and Play store since years
He just detailed a very weird and vague way that is unbelievable.
I'm a user since January 2023, there were plenty of well-known web clients already available back at that time (e.g. coracle, amethyst, etc). You enter the clients, there is a WoT by default and shows the most proeminent conversations typically.
My experience was never as the one he describes. Not even at the beginning, as you can see for many others here on this same publication. Those few (3?) cases mentioning otherwise will never provide real details for their claims.
it is possible if it is a protocol not a platform. Like there can be illegal stuff over http, there can be illegal stuff over nostr and a normal person can come across it. Actually way more likely on nostr because on web we have centralized https certs and dns which is used all the time to block cp and the like
It's funny when people first say "nostr is just a protocol and completely not subject to censorship" then "there is no way a new user would encounter bad stuff on nostr". pick one?
nostr is not a social network. per words of every nostr promoter. it's a protocol. it's like email
also you'll be committing an offence. the first thing you do is report it to authorities, not doing it is illegal. so that's half your day gone. then blogging about how to find it before it's taken down probably also illegal. literally no one wants any of this on a random day)
What exactly is wrong about my statement? Stating that my experience is wrong is stupid.
I don't know how the app I used works. I simply used the "Snort" app, connected to a few relays and did not use it for a couple of months. Then I came back and instantly saw CP freely shared. Instantly removed the app from the phone.
You can't say that it don't exist when people like me have seen it with their own set of eyes. This only makes protocols/projects like nostr set to fail, since regular people won't fucking care and just think of the nostr as something pedophiles are using, which they would not be incorrect in thinking at this moment.
I was betting on nostr in the beginning, I was running my own relay and started on a nostr client. But I gave up since clients came popping up everywhere so I didn't really have time to compete.
Yeah, when a layperson says $SOCIAL_MEDIA is full of child pornography, it often just means legal anime content that would be on advertisements everywhere in Tokyo, especially anime contents that are LESS explicitly sexualized.
This happens because Japan always has disproportionately massive online presence with significantly better democratized attention engineering, and so content selections naturally mimic a crossing at Akihabara(despite it almost has been entirely superseded by Chinese tech cultural centers such as Shenzhen), not the Times Square(in NYC), which infuriates a lot of somewhat vocal people.
And, the reason why I must bring this up is that it is not merely it is inaccurate labeling, but it is also counter productive to not face it straight on. Such as, people would move away from pornography, making it less actually pornographic, which is more child-pornographic by the standards of people using this term in this manner, because that is what are considered LESS sexualized contents by its producers, which by the way exist in orders of millions in Japan and leaking out fast into Asia at large.
TLDR. Hating anime, fine. Just don't call it CP. Your words sound opposite of intent. That's what brought us here. So stop.
1. I am not a layperson. I used nostr while it was still under active development and when it only had a few NIPs finished.
2. I have been to Japan several times, I know the difference between anime/hentai/lolita and stuff like that. This is not what I was experiencing.
3. I have nothing against pornography in general.
The issue is that when people bring up shit like this, we are not taken seriously and this hurts projects like nostr. It will never reach momentum if no steps are taken to prevent illegal material and dark shit like CP.
Calling me a liar makes me believe that you are intentionally are downplaying the experiences I and others have, which is helping pedophiles and similar people share their illegal content freely and without consequences. Why I do not know and you should seriously think about it and stop.
-> The disagreement is in the definition of $thing.
It can't get clearer. How else would you explain it? Either you're lying(I guess not), or your definition is way off, or those secret underground organizations made some mistake and their secret Facebook group illegal content leaked out(no such thing on Nostr). By far the most likely scenario is that you're grouping from traffic cones to boxes of oranges to parrots in a forest into the exact same category of offensive contents by standards that nobody else could even understand.
But aren't relays supposed to be completely architecturally different from Mastodon instances? I thought that very point of Nostr is that choice of relays should not (directly) lead to availability or mix of contents.
What I would consider is that nostr doesn't show you content. The content you see is a function of:
1. The people you follow
2. The relays you read from
3. The clients (apps) you use
I can't think of any clients which surface weird stuff (I've never seen any on nostr).
I think to reach this situation a user must follow weird accounts and thus get their content - but then I can't see that as being nostr related, since someone could do that on the internet or other networks.
It's euphemism for anime. Listening to these draw lines between porn and not-porn ever clearer, which users interpret that inside the line is free-for-all, and anime wins and obliterates everything even harder after the fix is implemented or strengthened.
These people come back fuming hot with more derogatory, still indirect, descriptions, and cycle repeats. This has been a "problem" for social media for almost as long as I've been online.
Yeah, they could say such and such handles are spreading content disgusting in such and such ways, e.g. "users like Sam Altman are posting astronauts riding horses on the Moon". They don't have to be so specific that exact contents would be actually accessible, only plausible. The mental imagery would not have to be precisely imaginable to disgusting details.
It's odd that they see "tons of" things that they can't describe beyond it belongs in the category, as if, just as if, actually characterizing it beyond making trust me remarks would lead to formation of broad consensus against them rather than against the contents.
Not really. Cryptos are born out of criticism for current systems and they are an ever evolving technology fueled by those same critics.
What doesn't make sense is when the other party starts making stories just to tarnish other competing technologies. Just now the OP was asked to provide details to replicate his findings and those were indeed very "fuzzy" to say the least.
> Cryptos are born out of criticism for current systems
Nope. Most are born out of people not understanding how existing systems work and/or looking to get rich quick.
> an ever evolving technology fueled by those same critics.
No, it's mostly a self-perpetuating self-congratulatory hype machine busily re-inventing the systems they criticise
> What doesn't make sense is when the other party starts making stories just to tarnish other competing technologies.
What does make sense is the extremely fragile ego of crypto bros who can't stand any criticism towards their scams and hype, or the mention of any possible issues.
All of that is correct, albeit not the full picture.
Crypto wasn't created as a "get rich quick". I say this because I was there since the early days and participated quite a bit on the related BBS. Back then you'd already make good money building bots for day trading on stocks, crypto was really about a type of currency that no government could touch.
Nowadays the large majority of users are desperate to make some money through pyramid schemes and pure speculation to "get rich quick" albeit they usually end up losing money. The small minority is doing what they've always done: looking at systems, criticizing systems and building their own solutions to those systems.
There is really good stuff being built. Not many do it, granted.
And.. why would I lie? I used nostr for a little while in the very early days. Stopped using it then came back and had this experience on a major nostr app.
It's a more censorship resistant platform, of course it'll see some spam. If this happens, you'll see lots of outrage, people see it as a way to test out and improve WoT.
The content (images, videos) itself is often quickly removed by blossom/media relay runners, especially if people report it and once they're cleared the spam notes are basically worthless to anyone because they're just dead links and spammy/abusive hashtags. Due to the hashtags is still quite easy to purge them.
I run my own relay and self reported it whenever one of these notes or uploads hit my systems. I built a quick shell script using AI to take care of almost all of that.
The problem is that in many jurisdictions (including the ones to which the vast majority of HN users are likely subject), by the time you've received “that kind of stuff” you're already in legal hot water.
> Relays have to become more whitelisted and less open, and clients have to implement outbox model and stop relying on 2 or 3 big relays, then we can just stop worrying about this.
Modern politicians only goal seems to be how to make peoples lives worse. I don't understand how this did happen. I think the people simply got too lazy and let them run loose instead of resisting like we used to.
Now the EU is slowly turning into a oligarchy where very few control the majority. For every stupid law they make, the more I wish for it's destruction.
Paper authors (and this posts author apparently) like to throw in lots of scary-looking maths to signal that they are smart and that what they are doing has merit. The Reinforcement Learning field is particularly notorious for doing this, but it's all over ML. Often it is not on purpose, everyone is taught this is the proper "formal" way to express these things, and that any other representation is not precise or appropriate in a scientific context.
In practice, when it comes down to code, even without higher-level libraries, it is surprisingly simple, concise and intuitive.
Most of the math elements used have quite straightforward properties and utility, but of course if you combine them all together into big expressions with lots of single-character variables, it's really hard to understand for everyone. You kind of need to learn to squint your eyes and understand the basic building-blocks that the maths represent, but that shouldn't be necessary if it wasn't obfuscated like this.
I’m going to push back on this a bit. I think a simpler explanation (or at least one that doesn’t involve projecting one’s own insecurities onto the authors) is that the people who write these papers are generally comfortable enough with mathematics that they don’t believe anything has been obfuscated. ML is a mathematical science and many people in ML were trained as physicists or mathematicians (I’m one of them). People write things this way because it makes symbolic manipulations easier and you can keep the full expression in your head; what you’re proposing would actually make it significantly harder to verify results in papers.
Maybe! I’ve found that people usually don’t do extra work if they don’t need to. The heavy notation in differential geometry, for example, can be awfully helpful when you’re actually trying to do Lagrangian mechanics on a Riemannian manifold. And superfluous bits of a definition might be kept around because going from the minimal definition to the one that is actually useful in practice can sometimes be non-trivial, so you’ll just keep the “superfluous” definition in your head.
To add to this, I'd even argue that the most "scary looking" parts of the GAN paper are where Goodfellow is just showing intermediate steps, like in (4) and (5). I guess one can argue that this is superfluous but that feels pretentious. I'd argue that the math here is helping communicate.
I think people forget why math is used. I'm always a little surprised that programmers don't see this because the languages are being used for the same reasons. Precision. They're terrible languages to communicate something like this conversation but then again English is a terrible way to communicate highly abstract concepts.
On the other hand, I've definitely seen people use math to make their works seem more important (definitely in some ML) I think I more frequently see it just being copy pasted (like every diffusion paper ever). I think that is probably superfluous, though it's definitely debatable and I'm absolutely certain these use cases aren't for flexing lol.
Agreed. Also, fwiw, the mathematics involved in the paper are pretty simple as far as mathematical sophistication goes. Spend two to three months on one "higher level" maths course of your choosing and you'll be able to fully understand every equation in this paper relatively easily. Even a basic course in information theory coupled with some discrete maths should give you essentially all you need to comprehend the math in this post. The concepts being presented here are not mysterious and much of this math is banal. Mathematical notation can seem foreboding, but once you grasp it, you'll see, like Von Neumann said, that life is complicated but math is simple.
Haha, recognise. I invented a fast search algorithm and worked with some academics to publish a paper on it last year.
They threw in all the complex math to the paper. I could not initially understand it at all despite inventing the damn algorithm!
Having said that, picking it apart and taking a little time with it, it actually wasn't that hard - but it sure looked scary and incomprehensible at first!
I think you misunderstand what the math is for. The math is not for training the model but for understanding why the model can be formulated that way and why this training will work. It is the exact opposite of obscurification.
Think of it this way
You don't need math to train a good model but you need math to know why your model is wrong.
It isn't about lording over others, it is that in research you care why things work just as much as that they work. The reason for this is very simple: it's fucking hard to improve things when you don't understand them. If you just have a black box then the only strategy you have available is brute force. But if you analyze things and and build knowledge, then you don't have to brute force.
Also, the idea of using a paper to signal intelligence is kinda silly. Papers aren't being written for the general public, papers are the communication between scientists. Who are they impressing? Each other? The others who are going to call them out if they write bullshit or make arguments convoluted? I don't buy that. But maybe because I'm a researcher. But I also don't think I need to use math to look smart, my PhD and publication record do a good enough job of that on their own. I don't even need it to flex to other researchers. The math in my papers is because it is just easier to communicate. I'm sure there's concepts that you find easier to understand by reading code than by using English. Same thing. Math and programming are great languages when you need high precision and when being pedantic is essential. Math is used because it is the best way to communicate, not as a flex. We flex on each other by showing how our ideas are the best. You can't do that if the other person doesn't understand you.
@staticelf and anyone else that feels that way:
That feeling is normal in the beginning. Basically your first year of a PhD is spent going "what the fuck does any of this mean?!?!" It's rough. But also normal. You're working at the bounds of human knowledge and papers are written in the context of other papers. It's hard to jump in because it is like jumping into the middle of a decades (or longer) conversation. If you didn't feel lost then the conversation probably wasn't that complicated and we'd probably have solved those problems much earlier. So you sit down and read a lot of papers to get context to that conversation.
My point is, don't put yourself down. The hill you need to climb looks steeper than it is. Unfortunately it is also hard to track your progress so you tend to feel like it's continually out of reach until it suddenly isn't. (It's also hard because everyone feels like an imposter and many are afraid to admit not knowing. But the whole job is about not knowing lol) Probably the most important skill in a PhD is persistence. I doubt you're too stupid. I'm sure you can look back and see that you've done things you or other people are really impressed with. Things that looked like giant mountains to climb but looking back don't seem so giant anymore. We'd get nowhere in life if we didn't try to do things we initially thought were too hard. Truth is you never know till you try. I'm not going to say it's easy (it isn't), but that it isn't insurmountable. You can't compare yourself against others who have years of training. Instead look at them and see that that's where this training can take you. But you can't get there if you don't try.
I come from a country which had a strong Soviet influence, and in school basically we were taught that behind every hard formula lies an intuitive explanation. As otherwise, there’s no way to come up with the formula in the first place.
This statement is not true, there are counter examples I encountered in my university studies but I would say that intuition will get you very far. Einstein was able to come up with special theory of relativity by just manipulating mental models after all. Only when he tried to generalize it, that’s when he hit the limit of the claim I learned in school.
That being said after abandoning intuition, relying on pure mathematical reasoning drives you to a desired place and from there you usually can reason about the theorem in an intuitive way again.
Math in this paper is not that hard to learn, you just need someone to present you the key idea.
> behind every hard formula lies an intuitive explanation
Probably a good thing to teach people when starting out. Especially since I think one thing people have is converting the symbols to the abstract ideas they communicate.
I agree you're definitely right that a lot of math (if not most) is really unintuitive. But I think I still like the sentiment behind that idea. Maybe it changes with translation, but I feel like that equations make a lot more sense when I break them down and think about what the symbols are doing and looking at their relationships with one another compared to when just looking at them as symbols to manipulate. Like seeing the form F=ma as more than mass and acceleration and but how in structure it is similar to F=-kx. Getting there isn't easy but once you do it is much more intuitive than it was before.
Haha, I was just going to say the same. I was hoping, I guess naively, that this would explain the math. Not just show me math. While I love a good figure, I like pseudocode just as much :)
English is actually a weird language without genders in nouns. I.e. in Slavic languages you can say "male software engineer" with word "vyvojar" and "female software engineer" with a word "vyvojarka" and then lot of grammar is built atop of this fact.
Job listing are then trying to use something like "vyvojar/ka" to signify that both genders are sought for, but there is nothing like that in English, so you will get translation as "software engineer (all genders)" instead of using just "software engineer"
I tried to build an app with web components but honestly, the DX is quite bad and I abandoned the shadow DOM for light dom until I abandoned the vanilla tech stack entirely and moved the project to React. It is just so much faster to develop in React in comparison. Also when stuff goes wrong with components they many times just fail silently with no errors given to the console.
You have such a great community with big, very well thought out libraries like Tanstack Query that is pretty nice to work with. I can have backend and front end code in the same repository in a simple way and reuse code.
I also have the project in Phoenix Liveview which is also a much nicer way of using components. The thing is I don't really know which tech stack is gonna win so I made a small prototype in both to see different advantages / disadvantages.
One thing is clear tho, pretty much everything is better than using vanilla components and it's really sad because I really do want to use vanilla components and I want them to be good.
Figure out an AI to do my dishes, laundry and clean my home. Not the fun parts of life please.
Everyone wants the futuristic star trek future but we all forget that there is only one Captain Kirk and his small crew. Most of us will be sitting around at home doing laundry and cleaning the workplaces of the robots that is owned by large corporations.
