hypothesis #2: new popular stances against lurking and lurking behavior (e.g. "not approving follow requests from accounts without a bio"), is partly responsible for (or at least has a common cause with) what we perceive to be the tendency to toxicity associated with social media; people are selecting for strong ego and (over)confidence—and selecting against meekness and thoughtfulness
Aliens, presented with the opportunity to make contact with humans or not:
"So when they put their books on shelves, they always stand them up and you have to turn your head like that? And these are shelves specifically made for books that we're talking about? Let's get the fuck out of here, Quiiblort."
Digital distribution made it practical to buy individual songs rather than entire records. It's interesting that the publishing industry hasn't adopted a similar model.
I often don't want to read a book. I want a pamphlet or a blog post that gets the idea across succinctly, but with the *option* of following the writer's work, should they continue to explore the topic in a series.
Books are already made of chapters. Could it be a good idea to treat chapters like pamphlets?
A riff on Zawinski's law about mail; let's call this one Chompy's law:
If not properly tended to, every multi-user system capable of accepting text and forwarding it to others, no matter what its intended purpose, will degrade into a carrier of a low-quality signal as its users gradually treat it as their means for free-form discussion.
The nearly wholesale replacement of wikis in favor of static sites generated from git-backed repos of Markdown files is probably the second worst thing that the GitHub era has brought us.
(The first is an entire generation of developers who have no idea how to properly use a bugtracker, which is not helped by the collective hallucination by devs who've been around long enough to know better but for whatever reason treat them just the same—as message boards.)
@richdecibels re <https://handbook.enspiral.com/ventures/venture_profiles/enspiral_foundation> first link on the page (Members) leads to 404.
The "#>" sequence happens to be really easy to type on the Dvorak layout. I might also allow "#@" or "#$" as alternatives. I don't want to use "#!" for historical reasons.
Security considerations: need to make sure command demux occurs only as a result of an event ("hashchange"), and not automatically on page load, else if the commandset has sufficient privileges, that'd open things up to RCE just via links.
Implementing an easter egg for a program that runs in the web browser. If when the URI fragment changes it begins with ">", then we initialize a command dispatcher and hand the rest of fragment off to it to be interpreted as a command string.
E.g. http://example.com/app/#>foo is interpreted as the command "foo"
The result is a CLI input with zero in-page visual footprint.
Etymology weirds things up. It's been said before, but us calling these things smart "phones" would be pretty odd if you didn't know the context arising from that accident of history. A *phone*? Lame.
"Mobile device" is too anodyne for my tastes, and "pocket computer" too forced and awkward.
Two alternatives by the same vestigial principle that I find more interesting:
- "field cam" (as in "field camera")
- "spiral" (short for "digital spiral", itself short for "digital spiral notebook")
For a long time, I've felt that using the space above the browser tab bar is underutilized. Great for when you have interface elements that need to communicate that they originate from the browser itself and not content.
When I hit the padlock icon, I don't want to see a popup. The whole browser UI should slide down 1/3 of the screen height and reveal all the relevant information.
I'm thinking, too, of how this might overlap (or obviate) literate programming. Is it possible that by giving human names (maybe even harmless personality quirks) to a set of agents that their processes could be more readily grasped by actual humans (i.e. other programmers trying to get up to speed)? In particular, compare this to the supposed benefits of a "memory palace".
More recently, I had some shower thoughts about "proper" OO (and its proper place). What if we entertained the idea of forgetting OO, FP, etc and instead model all processes as a group attacking a problem, as in an organization (and not just the lofty ones; consider a fast food joint, for example). Your role as the programmer would be to split up the workload among Tom, Dick, and Mary. There'd still be a place for objects, but as appliances for your virtual agents' use.
Dijkstra thought we should kill the athropomorphic metaphor—personification of program components.
I've thought for a long time that there's probably something to be had by doing the opposite and embracing it in some cases. HCI is the obvious place for it. In that case, could the interaction design even end up unlocking the right abstractions for the solution to a given problem? (Suppose you didn't have a virtual assistant, for example, but instead a few, each with their own strengths.)
I think the problem is that at least half the people repeating this stuff have no idea what they're talking about. They're like Jesse Eisenberg's character in the The Squid and the Whale, parroting some BS they heard someone (like Jeff Daniel's character) say once.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!