>the average person's response is "nah, that would take at least a couple of minutes of my time,
As a data point I, a technical person who tweaks his computer a lot, was against adblocking for moral reasons (as a part of perceived social contract, where internet is free because of ads). Only later I changed mi mind on this because I became more privacy aware.
Figure this: You could plaster a page with the most obtrusive ads imaginable without ever showing a cookie banner, when they collect no private info.
Most people, including folks on here, think cookie banners are a problem, but they are just an annoying attempt to phish your agreement. As long as these privacy loopholes exist, we will keep hearing such stories even from large corporations with much to loose, which means the current privacy regulations do not go far enough.
Beyond just invasive/annoying, ad networks explicitly spread malware and scams/fraud. There's not much incentive for them to clamp down on it, though, as that would cost them money both in lost revenue and in paying for more thorough review.
It'd not even be hard for them to stop it, but they just had to be annoying instead.
When I first started out on the internet, ads were banners. Literally just images and a link that you could click on to go see some product. That was just fine.
However, that wasn't good enough for advertisers. They needed animations, they needed sounds, they needed popups, they needed some way to stop the user from just skimming past and ignoring the ad. They wanted an assurance that the user was staring at their ad for a minimum amount of time.
And, to get all those awful annoying capabilities, they needed the ability to run code in the browser. And that is what has opened the floodgate of malware in advertisement.
Take away the ability for ads to be bundled with some executable and they become fine again. Turn them back into just images, even gifs, and all the sudden I'd be much more amenable to leaving my ad blocker off.
> The social contract was "your ads aren't annoying or invasive
Even back in the 1990s the internet was awash with popups, popunders and animated punch-the-monkey banner ads. And with the speed of dial up, hefty images slows down page loads too.
You must be a true Internet veteran if you remember a time ads weren’t annoying!
I remember a time before ads. I remember the first time I got "spam" email - email not directly addressed to me that ended up in my inbox. I was very confused for some time about why this email was sent to me.
I remember how I felt the first time I saw an ad come across my browser, it seems so long ago - I guess it was more than a quarter century ago now. I knew it was going to be downhill from there, and it has been.
Well by 2000 the guy at Tripod had already developed pop-up ads. I honestly don't remember ads before the pop-ups, but it must have already been maturing.
I strongly believe in paying journalists but I started blocking ads after nytimes.com served me a Windows malware download from a Doubleclick domain. It couldn’t have harmed my Mac but it was clear that the adtech industry had no interest in cleaning shop if it cost them a dime in revenue.
The average person — that would be me — thinks "nah, I have no idea how to install an ad blocker or how one works, and I'm afraid I'll screw up my computer."
You mean the internet you pay to access and which was around before the ads were even on it? That internet?
I'm not trying to be mean I'm just trying to historically parse your sentence/belief.
Because for me this is a simplified analogy of what happened on the internet:
a) we opened a club house called the internet in the early 1990s, just after the time of BBSs
b) a few years later a new guy called commercial business turned up and started using our club house and fucking around with our stuff
c) commercial business started going around our club house rearranging the furniture and putting graffiti everywhere saying the internet is here and free because of it. We're pretty sure it might have even pissed in the hallway rather than use the toilet and the whole place is smelling awful.
d) the rest of us started breaking out the scrubbing brushes and mops (ad blockers, extensions, VPNs, etc) trying to clean up after it
e) some of its friends turned up and started repeating something about social contracts and how business and ads built this internet place
f) the rest of us keep crying into our hands just trying to meet up, break out the slop buckets to clean up the vomit in the kitchen and some of us now have to wear gloves and condoms just to share things with our friends and stop the whole place collapsing
Ya, back when 'we' were fucking around on BBS's there was the equivalent of 10 people online at the time.
Quantity is a quality in itself. Your BBS was never going to support a million users. Once people figured out the network effect it was over for the masses. They went where the people are, and we've all suffered since.
Honestly, I still prefer webboards, the closest thing to a BBS, for specific topics like specific car brands/models. WAY better signal-to-noise ratio. Alas, for my car model, all the recent stuff has moved to Fbook. FML.
> a) we opened a club house called the internet in the early 1990s, just after the time of BBSs
"we" is doing a lot of work here. No clubhouse got optical switching working and all that fiber in the ground for example. Beyond POC, the Internet was all commercial interests.
"we" paid ISP's ... which in turn, paid for infrastructure. Some of "we" pay cable providers for internet service, which in turn paid for (in my case) fiber-to-the-curb. Advertising basically supported social media, search engines, etc.
> it was first and foremost a military enterprise, just like GPS
This is sort of like arguing cutlery is a military enterprise. Like yes, that’s where knives came from. But that’s disconnected enough from modern design, governance and other fundamental concerns as to be irrelevant. The internet—and less ambiguously, the World Wide Web—are more commercial than military.
This is moving the goalposts. The commenter above is talking about the enthusiast-populated internet of the late 80s/early 90s, at which point it still wasn't even clear if it was legal to use the internet for commercial purposes. If all you mean to say is that the internet is currently commercialized, yes, that is obviously true, in much the same way that a disgusting ball of decomposing fungus may have once been an apple.
> commenter above is talking about the enthusiast-populated internet of the late 80s/early 90s, at which point it still wasn't even clear if it was legal to use the internet for commercial purposes
Source? Not doubting. But I have a friend who was buying airline tickets through CompuServe in the late 80s/early 90s.
Compuserve was NOT the internet. Compuserve / Prodigy / GEnie were early versions of Facebook. They also inter-operated (email) for some period of time. IIRC.
This is ignoring things like newspapers that were made obsolete by the internet. At some point someone does need to actually pay for the content we see online. That is if we want that content to actually be good.
not sure why you're talking about "commercial business" being the one inserting ads everywhere when even niche community run forums from the 2000s also had ads to help pay for their server costs. At the end of the day all this costs money. Whether its paid by ads or direct subscriptions. IMO the problem is more about concentration and centralization of the internet into a handful of sites than advertising.
I have expensive online subscriptions to New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. Nevertheless they are FILLED with ads/popups/videos that run automatically/dark patterns. Just saying: there's no refuge.
True, but that doesn’t invalidate what I said about the vast majority of sites that aren’t globally known, prestigious news companies that people are willing to pay an expensive subscription for.
Most publishers of content online are ad supported and struggling, and I want to make sure I’m contributing to their revenue somehow.
I don’t feel bad about blocking ads on sites I pay for though.
>5:1 death rate (Russian:Ukrainian) is considered good for Russia
>pilots with 1k+ kills is not uncommon, kills in the hundreds is normal.
I am strongly pro-Ukraine in this conflict, but this sounds over the top and unbelievable. Are you sure this is not Ukrainian propaganda? Are there any reliable public sources about this?
I think Ukrainian propaganda would go "we can generate N times more manpower than Russia", which is the opposite of what these figures suggest. These figure are about the fact that force generation in Ukraine is a huge problem.
Edit: I first heard of these numbers from Peter Zeihan. I've since heard ballpark-similar estimates from other people. I think of it this way: Russia has a huge manpower pool. Further, their ability to extract actual manpower from it is higher (due to poverty, largely). So Ukraine likewise requires a huge battlefield advantage to break even. Further, Ukraine needs another huge advantage on top of that, so that it's painfully obvious that not only the war is unsustainable, but that it's only unsustainable to Russia: only then will Russia sue for peace. At the moment, it seems like the war is unsustainable for both, which means noone has the advantage.
>Was there ever an obfuscated JS code a human couldn't reverse given enough time?
I reverse malware for a living and no there wasn't. With some experience even the best obfuscation is actually pretty easy to defeat. But the goal of malware analysis is to extract some knowledge (what this code does, IPs, URLs, tokens). Getting a runnable, clean version would often be a long tedious work.
couldn't agree more, I do malware analysis too but like you said only as needed and to understand its capability (more Jscript than JS to be honest, except with the rare node malware). Obfuscation has always been a method of slowing down and discouraging analysis, not preventing it entirely. If it takes a week for a dedicated analyst to reverse it enough to clone the capability, and you do two week release sprints, that might be good enough.
minification was originally about sending less bytes on the wire and saving a bit of performance. Somewhere along the road people started misusing this for security, because JS evolved from "a few snippets of code to make my site more interactive" to SPAs
That's exactly 4D. Just like "non euclidean"[1], this term is often abused in entertainment to mean something else, but the post here is about the real 4d world rendering.
It seems strange to you? It's natural to how I write - intentionally avoiding politeness would be weirder to me.
But aside from that, an LLM is only a roleplayer. Treat it like an idiot that makes mistakes and it will act like one. Treat it like a coworker who you respect and it will act like one, and it will find better results.
Obviously nothing about how they act is set in stone but as a general rule this seems to me to be both wise and, in my experience, true as well.
I think if you treat it like a coworker who you respect, it will speak to you like a coworker who respects you, but will still make some idiotic mistakes...
It actually works really well if you suck up to the AI.
"Please do x"
"Thank you, that works great! Please do y now."
"You're so smart!"
lol. It really works though! At least in my experience, Claude gets almost hostile or "annoyed" when I'm not nice enough to it. And I swear it purposefully acts like a "malicious genie" when I'm not nice enough. "It works, exactly like you requested, but what you requested is stupid. Let me show you how stupid you are."
But, when I'm nice, it is way more open, like "Are you sure you really want to do X? You probably want X+Y."
>What type of developer chooses UX and performance over security? So reckless.
Initially I assumed this is sarcastic, but apparently not. UX and performance is what programmers are paid to do! Making sure UX is good is one of the most important things in programmer job.
While security is a moving target, a goal, something that can never be perfect, just "good enough" (if NSA wants to hack you, they will). You make it sound like installing third party packages is basically equivalent to a security hole, while in practice the risk is low, especially if you don't overdo it.
Wild to read extreme security views like that, while at the same time there are people here that run unconstrained AI agents with --dangerous-skip-confirm flags and see nothing wrong with it.
Even more wild to read that sarcasm about "removing locks from doors for 87% speedup" is considered extreme...
And yes, we agree that running unconstrained AI agents with --dangerous-skip-confirm flags and seeing nothing wrong with it is insane. Kind of like just advertising for burglars to come open your doors for you before you get home - yeah, it's lots faster to get in (and to move about the house with all your stuff gone).
First of all, I think your comment is against HN guidelines.
And I expect GP has actually a lot of experience in mathematics - there are exactly right and this is how professional mathematicians see math (at least most of them, including ones I interact with).
Not right now, right? I don't think current AI automated proofs are smart enough to introduce nontrivial abstractions.
Anyway I think you're missing the point of parent's posts. Math is not proofs. Back then some time ago four color theorem "proof" was very controversial, because it was a computer assisted exhaustive check of every possibility, impossible to verify by a human. It didn't bring any insight.
In general, on some level, proofs like not that important for mathematicians. I mean, for example, Riemann hypothesis or P?=NP proofs would be groundbreaking not because anyone has doubts that P=NP, but because we expect the proofs will be enlightening and will use some novel technique
Right, in the same way that programs are not opcodes. They're written to be read and understood by people. Language models can deal with this.
I'm not sure what your threshold for "trivial" is (e.g. would inventing groups from nothing be trivial? Would figuring out what various definitions in condensed mathematics "must be" to establish a correspondence with existing theory be trivial?), but I see LLMs come up with their own reasonable abstractions/interfaces just fine.
reply