I agree that the original 4 parts of the web component spec ( custom elements, shadow dom, templates, modules ) had varying levels of battle testing and perhaps the most valuable ideas ( custom elements and ES modules ), were those which did have the biggest precedence.
> Frameworks collaborate, research and discover solutions together to push the technology forward. Is not uncommon to see SolidJS (paving the way with signals) having healthy discussions with Svelte, React, Preact developers.
This feels a bit deflective from the very real issue of in page framework interoperability - which is different from dev's taking to each other and sharing ideas.
When people say battle tested what they are really doing is looking for bias confirmation. Its no different than when they say software becomes more durable due to community validation.
The only way to be sure is to actually measure things, with numbers, and then compare those numbers to some established baseline. Otherwise its just a guess. The more confident the guess becomes the less probable from the average it becomes. This is how rats out perform humans in weighted accuracy tests in clinical trials.
Not sure what you mean - are you asking number of users, length of time etc?
All I'm saying with this is that ideas which have actually been implemented, used and evolved, are much less likely to have rough edges than something that's never left a whiteboard or spec document. I wasn't expecting that to be controversial.
This stuff is difficult - if I remember correctly the original web components vision was a completely self-contained package of everything - that didn't survive contact with reality - however the things like custom-elements, templating and ES modules are, in my view at least, very useful - and I'd argue they are also the things that had the most precedents - because they were solving real world problems.
That is an irrational comparison. There is no comparison between components and something imaginary or theoretical. The comparison is between components and not imposing components into the standards, which are both well known conditions.
People don't need components. They want components because that is the convention familiar to them. This is how JavaScript got classes. Everybody knew it is a really bad idea to put that into the standards and that classes blow out complexity, but the noise was loud enough that they made it in for no utility reason.
The idea that people don't want some sort of improved modularity, encapsulation, reusability, interop etc I think is wrong.
We can argue about whether components as proposed was the right solution, but are you arguing that templates, custom elements and modules have no utility?
Templating, for example, has been implemented in one form or another countless times - the idea that people don't need that seems odd.
Same goes for a js module system, same goes for hiding markup soup behind a custom element.
There was an initial proposal called web components that comprised a whole slew of enabling technologies - like custom elements, like modules, templates etc. Some of the proposals never got implemented.
The closest single thing to web components is custom-elements ( with optional shadow dom and optional slots ).
That completely misses the point. You are mistaking your preference for some objective, though unmeasured, benefit.
I could understand an argument from ignorance fallacy wherein your preference is superior to every other alternative because any alternative is unknown to you. But instead, you are saying there is only way one of doing things, components/modularity/templates, and this is the best of that one way's variations, which is just a straw man.
You really aren't limited to doing this work the React way, or any framework way. If you want to continue doing it the React way then just continue to use React, which continues to evolve its own flavor.
> But instead, you are saying there is only way one of doing things,
Nope. I did not say there is only one way of doing things. I asked you whether you really thought people didn't want improved modularity, encapsulation, reusability, interop.
For example without standardised modules you either had to choose one of several community module systems or live with poor modularity and encapsulation. And by standardising modules interop improves.
> If you want to continue doing it the React way then just continue to use React,
Only one of us is appearing to want to stop the way the other only likes to develop. If I want to use custom elements why all the anger?
> agree that the original 4 parts of the web component spec ( custom elements, shadow dom, templates, modules ) had varying levels of battle testing
What battle testing? Literally nothing in Web Components was ever battle-tested before release. You wouldn't need 20+ specs to paper over the holes in the design had they actually veen battle-tested.
Read my comment again. I literally said that various parts had various levels of precedents - and that the more successful parts were those with stronger precedents.
> Literally nothing in Web Components was ever battle-tested before release.
So you don't thing the ideas of modules or templates had had multiple precedents?
Totally agree that some aspects had much less precedent - and that's why, in the end, they either didn't get implemented or haven't got much traction.
> The best and most useful data is often inaccessible to crawlers.
Interesting point.
> ost open forums are dead because discussions happen on login platforms like Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, X, Discord, etc
Ironically isn't one of the reasons some of those platforms started to use logins was so they could track users and better sell their information to ad people?
Obviously now there are other reasons as well - regulation, age verification etc.
Does this suggest that the AI/ad platforms need to tweak their economic model to share more of the revenue with content creators?
I wonder if it may depend on the type of learning.
Whether it's something completely new and alien - in which case children might be better, or whether it's learning through association - ie I understand that because I can connect it to previously learnt concepts ( which would favour people with more previous knowledge ).
For example, something like maths is often seen as a young persons game, but at the same time you probably don't want a 14 yr old running your company.
I think there is a legitimate argument that the names of people who go to court and are either victims or are found innocent of the charges, should not be trivially searchable by anyone.
Though I'm not sure stopping this service achieves that.
Also - even in the case that somebody is found guilty - there is a fundamental principle that such convictions have a life time - after which they stop showing up on police searches etc.
If some third party ( not applicable in this case ), holds all court cases forever in a searchable format, it fundamentally breaches this right to be forgotten.
This presumably also falls under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 which forbids this kind of citizen data being relayed to third parties without permission. The company don't have a leg to stand on here, which is why it is basing its public appeals now on the impact to its users (journalists). But no company has a right to flout data protection regulations or its agreed conditions of use without serious consequences. Since the data has already been passed on, the breach itself can't be fixed, so it is totally proportionate to order the service to be closed and its data deleted. Frankly, fuck companies with the arrogance to behave this way - cheating agreements and responsibilities in order to make more money, and then expecting indulgence because of the uniqueness of their service.
We should remember that local journalism has been dead for a decade in most of the UK, largely due to social media.
Any tool like this that can help important stories be told, by improving journalist access to data and making the process more efficient, must be a good thing.
Given custom elements are pretty widely supported by browsers now, I assume you are referring to js being turned off.
In terms of designing for that situation - you can follow a pattern where your custom element wraps ( <custom-ele><stdelement></></> ) the element you want to enhance. If js is turned off, then the custom element defaults to rendering it's contents....
Yep, that's the ideal approach for decent browsers. A curious caveat is that IE 8 and below will interpret that example HTML as <custom-ele></><stdelement></> (ie. as siblings, not parent and child) and therefore not apply any component-scoped styles. Not ideal.
Of course nobody uses those browsers anymore, the same caveat applies to non-custom HTML5 elements, and the bad behavior has long been preventable with JavaScript [0]. But anyone (else) with an extreme backwards compatibility mindset might consider if they could instead bootstrap from <div class="custom-ele"><stdelement></></> and (if needed and in window) a coordinating MutationObserver.
I think the goal for OpenAI employees today should be to do as much good as possible with the ridiculous amount of investor money raised before the bubble goes pop.
The question is whether OpenClaw will actually stay open in the world of 'Open'Ai.
That one image of all the camera's apparently remotely controlled to scan the entire neighbourhood is something it's difficult to unsee.
The implication is obvious, the feel is inhuman.
The power of a few seconds of video is why TikTok had to be brought under control ( and sadly not just because of worrying about what others might do, but to specifically censor and promote specific messages ).
The issue really isn't about whether your neighbourhood has camera's, the question is who is in control.
>The power of a few seconds of video is why TikTok had to be brought under control
Didn't USA's current regime take over TikTok in order to use it for propaganda? Twitter-X was used so successfully that they're expanding their psyops.
You can trust billionaires, they always have your best interest in heart. After all, they're so wealthy they don't have to exploit you, unlike those grubby mom and pop operations that are desperate.
no, israel demanded the tiktok thing due to the backlash they are recieving for genocide and ethnic cleansing. their faithful servants in america simply did as their master commanded.
"From the river to the sea" is a literal call for Israel to be ethnically cleansed. Both sides want to kill each other very badly, only one side has the capability at the moment.
Maybe. Though you have missed out the second part - which doesn't talk about cleansing - it only talks about end of occupation.
Only one side is an illegally occupying power who took the land by force from the people who were peacefully living there.
And don't quote me events from ~2000 years ago.
If everyone held grudges that long the whole world would be at war.
The people in the West bank currently being driven from their homes - they aren't a threat to Israel - they are just farmers working their land. Trying to pick their olives.
It's a false equivalence to say there are two sides, on the one hand and the other.
Well the Arabic version is often “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab” or “Palestine will be Muslim”.
Given the number of Jews who live in areas under full Palestinian authority (or in any other Arab countries), we know that “free” means “Jew-Free”.
And given the way you refer to all of it as “Occupation”. Including the parts that were legally purchased, developed, and built by Jews, the parts where Jews and Muslims live freely together as equal citizens, the implication is that all of that needs to be dismantled as well.
What’s your intention with the Jews who live there?
Are you denying the West bank is under occupation? Are you denying, that Arab citizens of Israel are not treated equally under the law?
> What’s your intention with the Jews who live there?
Eh? I have no 'intention', nor implied master plan - nor indeed have any personal stake in the region - other than to say that the running sore of the obvious injustice creates problems well beyond it's borders. Militant Islam is of course a problem - but I'd say Israel's current actions are one of the best recruiting agents.
I will say is that Arabs, Christians, others and Jews were quite happily living side by side in the region before the Zionist colonial project, there is no reason that can't be the situation again.
The West Bank is under occupation, Israel itself is not.
There may be some racism as in every other country, but Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Jews in Israel (and if you visit, you will see them living side by side and getting on well). Asides from being able to travel to certain areas, which the Arabs are allowed but Jews are not. And that military service is optional for Arabs.
It doesn’t matter if Christians and Jews were historically tolerated in Muslim countries. There’s no other country in the world that has proportionally this many Muslims and Jews living together. To think that you can replace it with a better model based on neighbouring countries is ridiculous or disingenuous.
> but Israeli Arabs have the same rights as Jews in Israel
That is simply not true. For example the 2023 Citizenship and Residency Revocation Law specifically only applies to one type of Israeli citizen.... guess which one?
>there may be some racism as in every other country
The question is whether than racism is part of the law and policy of the country. It's quite clear, under the current leadership, that if you are 'other' then you are second class.
> The West Bank is under occupation, Israel itself is not.
So Israels actions in the West bank are thus somehow not relevant???
> with a better model based on neighbouring countries is ridiculous or disingenuous
Senior members of the current Israeli government ( and I specifically make a distinction here between the goverment and the country ), are quite openly calling what can only be described as ethnic cleansing.
And as well as the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel is currently also occupying parts of Lebanon, Syria, and also appears to want a war with Iran.
The solution isn't to cleanse/kill everyone else, the solution is to find a way to live side by side.
You’ve given two examples of laws regarding the punishment of terrorists who have been convicted of killing Israelis (Arabs or Jews). There’s nothing in the wording of these laws that’s specific to the perpetrator’s race or religion (or the victims’). There’s only your implication that these terrorists are more likely to be Palestinian.
The Key "Exclusionary" Mechanism
The Funding Clause: The law authorizes the Interior Minister to revoke citizenship or residency only if the person was convicted of a terror offense and it is proven they (or someone on their behalf) received monetary benefits from the Palestinian Authority in connection with that act.
Practical Effect: Because only Palestinian prisoners/families receive these specific PA stipends, the law does not apply to Jewish citizens who commit acts of terror, even if they are convicted of the same offenses.
ie It's if you are a terrorist and receive money ( like a pension,wage, benefit ) from the PA.
It's quite clearly constructed to not include Jewish right-wing terrorist acts.
This was openly discussed, as the intent, in the Knesset when the law was passed.
None of this is surprising if you look at what the key political players have said in public - they are openly supremacist.
There is a reason for the ICC,ICJ cases.
Can't reply to post below due to depth - so reply here:
The point is that only terrorism funded by the PA counts - why add the PA funding qualification??? So for example if some settler movement funds people to terrorize Palestinians - it's not covered.
Surely terrorism is terrorism? The PA qualification aim is clear.
That's why all citizens are not equal before the law. It's very clearly specifically designed to favour one set of people over another.
It's quite open - I don't understand why you feel the need to redefine black as white.
Other Western countries have similar laws about revoking citizenship to those who fight for an enemy against their own country (like the UK did with Shamima Begum).
There’s nothing in the law about the race of the perpetrators. That the Palestinian authority only pays Arabs to kill innocent Israelis doesn’t make Israeli law unequal.
geographic "from <> to <>" slogans are very commonly used in such contexts. Basically you take a are geographically split into multiple regions, make a "from->to" slogan which treats this areas as one unit in between and imply through it that it should be all homogeneous (weather it's about country boraders or ethnicity)
---
Like e.g. the German national anthem is based on a song from 1841, i.e. it predates WW1,2 and in turn the current German border.
Due to this the first verse refers to boarder rivers which by now lie outside of Germany (and and has other issues related to sever misinterpretation of most of the verse).
This lead to it being abused by Nazis and later neo-nazis to mean Germany should go to war and size various border regions.
But Germany did need a national anthem and this song has a lot of important history meaning unrelated to WW2/Nazis. So west Germany decided to make it the anthem again, but only sing the 3rd verse for official occasions. Through due to continuous abuse of neo-nazies of the first verse this was changed with reunification and today only the 3rd verse is the official national anthem.
Anyway I got a bit off topic but "from <> to <> verses" crossing country boarders (or "ethnic" boarders if used in some "ethnic" context) are most times "pretend to be harmless" slogans of extremists, even if they have a history where they had other meaning (like with the first verse of the song the German national anthem is based on).
Well, they're more aligned with Larry Ellison's than they are the CCP, even if they're probably not all that aligned.
Separately I don't particularly care who owns TikTok. I've never used it. But if someone is going to own Tiktok and people are going to voluntarily subject themselves to these algorithms and the owner’s intentions, I'd prefer it to be Americans (or another western country).
I can't stop the influence of it on my life by not using it. Perhaps it's not as straightforward as it seems to you.
China didn't seem to be doing much with it, as far as the West goes. Not sure if they were using it against their citizens though? Much safer to have it Chinese controlled for me, it seems.
You suggesting that China was "anti American" sounds crazy to me. They were surely your biggest trading partner? Like, I hate all those guys so much that we're going to make everything they want at whatever price they want to pay ...? In the past it might have been possible to argue they were anti-American in their politics; like opposing democracy, or rounding up nationals, ... but USA does as badly (worse?) on those things.
What it looks like is China was 'winning' the trade balance and USA's billionaires decided to take a break from raping teenagers to throw all the citizens on the fire to try and leverage their position to bring in fascism as a means to enriching themselves even further. Go USA, eh.
> I can't stop the influence of it on my life by not using it. Perhaps it's not as straightforward as it seems to you.
Yea but you can stop what would be 80+% of the influence on your life by not using it. It is very straightforward.
> China didn't seem to be doing much with it, as far as the West goes.
China (and other malicious actors) have demonstrably leveraged social media platforms to inflame tensions, create anti-American and anti-Western sentiment, and more. With platforms like TikTok they were able to more directly influence content, they understand the algorithm that is used, &c.
But let me put it to you from a different angle. If you don't think China was or could have been using TikTok to influence Americans and westerners in general, then I'd suggest the US had nothing to do with, oh, idk, the Arab Spring. :)
> Not sure if they were using it against their citizens though? Much safer to have it Chinese controlled for me, it seems.
Well they have other platforms for that, social credit score, TVs on every corner, &c. Much safer for me to have it American controlled so I don't have an authoritarian Chinese communist party trying to influence me or anyone around me, or further inflaming tensions for their own gain.
> You suggesting that China was "anti American" sounds crazy to me. They were surely your biggest trading partner? Like, I hate all those guys so much that we're going to make everything they want at whatever price they want to pay ...? In the past it might have been possible to argue they were anti-American in their politics;
Well it's not just Americans and Canadiens, it's the EU too. The strategy was to leverage incredibly cheap labor (slave labor in some cases) and loose environmental restrictions to start manufacturing cheap goods and then move up the value chain. Inherently there's nothing to wrong with the approach (minus the slave labor and all of that), but as China continued to do so they did so while also undercutting competitiveness from other countries and blocs. They artificially devalue their currency, they routinely broke WTO rules so much so that other countries said to hell with it. The EU for example has historically tariffed Chinese products. Why? Because if they don't then local industries in the EU with long summer vacations and all of these nice things would be out-competed and out of business.
This isn't really controversial or anything. It's pretty well known, and from an American standpoint the point of view with respect to China is rather bipartisan.
Sometimes, particularly in the optimisation space, the clarity of the resulting code is a factor along with absolute performance - ie how easy is it for somebody looking at it later to understand it.
And what is 'understandable' could be a key difference between an AI bot and a human.
For example what's to stop an AI agent talking some code from an interpreted language and stripping out all the 'unnecessary' symbols - stripping comments, shortening function names and variables etc?
For a machine it may not change the understandability one jot - but to a human it has become impossible to reason over.
You could argue that replacing np.column_stack() with np.vstack().T() - makes it slightly more difficult to understand what's going on.
To answer your other questions: instructions, including the general directive to follow nearby precedent. In my experience AI code is harder to understand because it's too verbose with too many low-value comments (explaining already clear parts of code). Much like the angry blog post here which uses way too many words and still misses the point of the rejection.
But if you specifically told it to obfuscate function names I'm sure it would be happy to do so. It's not entirely clear to me how that would affect a future agent's ability to interpret that file, because it still does use tools like grep to find call sites, and that wouldn't work so well if the function name is simply `f`. So the actual answer to "what's stopping it?" might be that we created it in our own image.
For example with signals https://github.com/tc39/proposal-signals
I agree that the original 4 parts of the web component spec ( custom elements, shadow dom, templates, modules ) had varying levels of battle testing and perhaps the most valuable ideas ( custom elements and ES modules ), were those which did have the biggest precedence.
> Frameworks collaborate, research and discover solutions together to push the technology forward. Is not uncommon to see SolidJS (paving the way with signals) having healthy discussions with Svelte, React, Preact developers.
This feels a bit deflective from the very real issue of in page framework interoperability - which is different from dev's taking to each other and sharing ideas.
reply