In 2012, I created IvanK.js - a Javascript library with the "Flash API" for quickly remaking ActionScript 3 games into the web environment. But it required WebGL, which as not very well supported back then.
I could remake several of my flash games quickly into web.
It should be enough to make it mandatory for banks to let people send money to each other for free, even abroad (within the EU). Then, at the shop, you can simply pay by making a bank transaction through the internet banking (which can be a phone app, a website, etc). The payment details (account number of the receiver, the amount, etc) can be transferred through NFC or a QR code.
Money would go directly bank-to-bank, nothing in the middle.
Of course not, it's expressing widely held observations that have been out there in the human population for a long time, and they're correct observations so they're hardly impossible to find.
It's not really a good argument to say 'but what if this argument is so right and so commonly held that an AI could regurgitate it?'. Well, yes, because AI is not inherently unable to repeat correct opinions. It's pretty trivial to get AI to go 'therefore, I suck! I should be banned'. What was it, Gemini, which took to doing that on its own due to presumably the training data and guidance being from abused and abusive humans?
Many non-programmers think that programming languages get outdated, just like operating systems or computer hardware, or even some software (old algorithms replaced by better algorithms), and each programmer should "follow trends", since using the same programming language for 10+ years sounds wrong.
But programming languages are like Math. It is like saying "multiplying is outdated" or "the square root is outdated".
if you don't think programming languages can get outdated then why is assembly, fortran, lisp, smalltalk, pascal, basic practically disappeared? programming languages are not like math, it's like the moon
Internet is amazing, it is the best invention of humanity, and each year, a person spends more time on the internet (on average) than a year before, which shows that it is getting more and more useful for everyone.
Those who enjoy saying "I do not learn enough, I do not improve myself enough, I do not work hard enough" (but you say "the humanity" instead of "I"), that is just your own fault. Let people use the internet the way they want to use it.
> and each year, a person spends more time on the internet (on average) than a year before, which shows that it is getting more and more useful for everyone.
In the same way heroin proves itself more useful for everyone year after year.
> each year, a person spends more time on the internet (on average) than a year before, which shows that it is getting more and more useful for everyone.
How in the world does that sound like a reasonable conclusion?
Each year, I spend more time in my car during my commute (on average) than a year before, which shows that being stuck in traffic is getting more and more useful to me.
I chose to give that nice man my wallet instead of taking a bullet, but that doesn’t actually reveal as much about my preferences as you seem to think it does.
No, you chose to be able to go back to your loved ones in one piece. That very much reveals your preferences. Do you think someone who was in depression, who had a terminal illness might do differently?
It doesnt mean that it getting more and more useful though. The alternatives could be getting worse and worse. Or there just aren't alternatives.
Maybe this is just a disagreement of what it means for something to "become more useful"? As an example, If I need a bank account and every bank goes online only and shutters their physical locations, that is not online banking becoming more useful to me. I was perfectly happy going to the physical location, but i am now spending more time doing banking on the internet.
You choose to spend your time on a place A instead of the place B, it means that the place A is better than the place B. Why else would you do it, if B was better? It is a simple logic.
It also could happen because tech companies have optimized their products to maximize the amount of time that people spend on them, often in ways that directly result in a worse user experience (by showing ads instead of the most relevant search results, for example).
The original poster said “more useful”, not “better”, so you’re already arguing something different than what was said. I might spend more time with something less useful because its time efficiency is one of the things that makes it less useful now.
Regarding your argument of “better” you seem to be arguing by definition.
Edit: I now realize you are the original poster who said “more useful”, so why did you change it?
You vote with your feet. If you can only follow the world would be exactly as simple as you make it out to be.
If you write things for your own website you would make more of an effort and it would ideally find an audience that enjoys your world view or insights into your topics.
It would be great to lure you into that experience. HN is a terrible dating agency. Gathering down votes here is the opposite of making friends. It is however great for discovering authors like Henry.
He could have spend his time complaining on x how bad it is.
If you’re arguing that there are different ways of being better than your argument falls even further apart since you might choose a worse option because it is better in some way…
No, this is not at all a given. There could be switching costs that cause people to stay on a product that is actually worse. Users also simply might be unaware of alternatives or that they are better. It's not hard to imagine any number of other reasons why in our imperfect world there is not perfectly elastic competition.
Correct. When I spend more time in the bar and fewer time at work and with my family then this is a sign that the bar is more useful and better for me than work and family.
When somebody talks like this, ready to ban social networks, videogames, pornography, the whole internet, and pretty much every freedom that billinons of people enjoy, by comparing it to drugs, it scares me quite a lot.
I think the arguments you're currently having with people come down to: To what extent do I control what I myself do?
People have a tendency to push blame to external forces rather than take responsibility for their own actions. But personal responsibility cannot be the full story, because (almost) everyone acknowledges that drug addiction is something over which people have starkly reduced control.
So the question remains: What about other things "in the middle" like social media or porn "addiction"? Is it the fault of the person, the external force (which you must admit is consciously organised with the goal in mind of promoting the addictive behaviour, since their bottom line depends on it), or some mixture?
It’s absolutely not the case that people are good enough in general at optimising their time and lives that the things they spend the most time on are the “best” they could have done.
Most people will readily admit to this, especially when it comes to the internet, and it’s well documented that many people are not happy with how much time they spend on the internet or how it impacts their lives.
> You choose to spend your time on a place A instead of the place B, it means that the place A is better than the place B. Why else would you do it, if B was better? It is a simple logic.
Your logic seems to be wanting.
I choose to spend more time at work than on vacation. Do you think I like it better, or can you imagine one reason explaining why I work?
I'm sympathetic to that view, but I'm also aware of a particular way it doesn't explain the world. Often I make local choices that I enjoy while nonetheless regretting them later. Text social networks are the most common way this happens to me. But the other common failure mode was with food.
Without the retatrutide dose I'm on I frequently consume large amounts of food. I love apples, and blueberries, and chicken and rice. I can easily eat an entire Costco bag of Envy Apples at a stretch. Inevitably, I regret this once I have exited my fugue state of food consumption. So why do I do it? My behaviour on retatrutide is far superior at getting me both total content and joy (in the sense of area-under-the-curve rather than point-in-time).
This concept has been explored for a long time[0]. The earliest documented I know of is the concept of Akrasia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrasia from the Greek philosophers. But I think any notion of utility must build in the notion of regret and perhaps the bicameral mind and perhaps also the notion of non-rationality. My utility functions for the things I do are not time-translation invariant, therefore I think any model that optimizes for greater content and greater joy must necessarily involve temporally non-local terms. I don't yet have a strong model of this.
But we know this is common to many mental disorders. Part of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is an interruption of some mental pattern. My wife and I have a game we find amusing to play when we want to overrule the other's temporally local preferences: we challenge the other to a game of rock-paper-scissors to see whether the countermanding applies. When she exercises it, I frequently find that even if I win the momentary desire has passed.
tl;dr: Utility functions have different values depending on the temporal stride they take
0: Recently, Elon Musk claimed that the aim for Twitter should be "unregretted user minutes". Sadly, despite this stated aim, I found that his changes decreased these and increased regret so I had to stop using his platform. I agree with the notion of maximizing (value - regret) expressed in some abstract form, however.
Except social media feeds are designed to addict. A smoker will spend their time smoking instead of not smoking. Does that mean that smoking is good? Why else would they do it, if not smoking was better? It's not that simple. When we blame the users, we forget tech monopolies are spending billions to engineer systems which are stealing our time.
When somebody talks like this, ready to ban social networks, videogames, pornography, the whole internet, and pretty much everything that billinons of people enjoy, by comparing it to gambling, it scares me quite a lot.
Nah, no bans. People should be free to spend their money and time as they please, but let's not pretend that 2000 calories of M&Ms a day is a healthy diet, either.
Your comparison may be apt for Tiktok. The OP talks about the Internet. Researching, learning, communicating, paying, shopping, entertaining, via the Internet, have steadily increased.
Year over year, we eat more junk food and get more overweight than the previous year. This demonstrates that junk food and fat are becoming increasingly useful and beneficial.
Chrome apparently has a minimum memory requirement of 4GB, so you'd need to shrink it down to one-one-hundred-and-twenty-eighth its size to squeeze it into the PS2's 32MB of RAM.
Macromedia did this when saving Fireworks files into PNG.
Also, Adobe saves AI files into a PDF (every AI file is a PDF file), and Photoshop can save PSD files into TIFF files (people wonder why these TIFFs have several layers in Photoshop, but just one layer in all other software).
> Macromedia did this when saving Fireworks files into PNG.
I forgot about this..
Fireworks was my favorite image editor, I don't know that I've ever found one I love as much as I loved Fireworks. I'm not a graphics guy, but Fireworks was just fantastic.
BTW. I am the author of https://www.photopea.com , which is the only software that can open Fireworks files today :D If you have any files, try to open theim (it runs instantly in your browser).
You’re doing god’s work here, thanks for your service! I use photopea all the time. Probably the most impressive web app I’ve seen in terms of performance.
Proud paid Photopea user here. I can't understand how you guys overcame my mountain of incredulity but you have saved my ass so much. I was literally looking into dual booting before I found your product.
I am confused. If a single-tape turing machine receives a digit N in binary, and is supposed to write N ones on the tape, on the right side of the digit N, it performs N steps.
If you expect N ones at the output, how can this machine be simulated in the space smaller than N?
This machine must decrement the digit N at the beginning of the tape, and move to the end of the tape to write "1", so it runs in time O(N^2), not O(N)? (as it takes N "trips" to the end of the tape, and each "trip" takes 1, 2, 3 .. N steps)
Since turing machines can not jump to any place on a tape in constant time (like computers can), does it have any impact on real computers?
This paper looks exclusively at decision problems, i.e. problems where the output is a single bit.
EDIT: This makes sense because if you look at all problems with N outputs then that is just the same as "gluing together" N different decision problems (+ some epsilon of overhead)
I think that 70 % of web users believe, that each website that they open can see their real name, their address, their phone number, the files on their computer, their browsing history and a lot more, and they believe that the GDPR laws are the only attempt to prevent websites from misusing (e.g. selling) all their private data.
I could remake several of my flash games quickly into web.
https://lib.ivank.net/?p=demos&d=bitmaps
reply