• 1 Post
  • 60 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 4th, 2023

help-circle








  • I made a static site with Hexo a few years back. I thankfully didn’t make any “Get started with Hexo” posts but I did only really use it for a few months. I think that puts me in the cluster with the “switch from Jekyll to Hugo” people. Now it just sits there, absorbing some money every two years for the “personal website tax”.

    Shame too, I constantly think I need to get back to it. Hexo is nice, popular with Chinese users I think. I don’t recall now why I liked it over Jekyll or Hugo, but I’ve always loved an underdog. Once I got the hang of using it, it was very customizable and fun to work with.



  • Ah, the classic Ultimatum Game. Economists would say that any amount of money should be acceptable for getting punched in the face, because its better than getting decked for nothing. The vast vast majority of people feel cheated if it isn’t a 50/50 split. This is what passes for a “paradox” to economists, who could probably all do with being punched in the face more often.



  • Codex@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldNon-binary
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    I want to upvote the OP for presenting an interesting discussion but downvote them for being wrong. This presents a case for a non-binary voting option.

    A singular like button would still only express one portion of my sentiment. A third option could be many things, none are sufficient: a none or 0 or neutral option is effectively not voting, a sideways arrow or maybe state, or mixed state would express indecision or indeterminism rather than mixed feelings.

    Therefore, I propose that a second positive-negative axis is required. The addition of these “sideways” arrows allow expressing 2 kinds of sentiment: towards the post content, and towards the poster themselves. I will not specify whether left or right is positive nor will i clarify which axis (x or y) corresponds to which kind of sentiment. I’m sure this undefined behavior will cause no problems.

    Here is your composite vote in the new system: ↖️


  • Codex@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldNon-binary
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    If there already exists “a binary” then that says there are 2 states. “Non-binary” only means there are not-two-states. This could be unary (there is one kind of thing), trinary (there are now 3 things, the old 2 and new, secret 3rd thing), or really any n-ary set of n distinctly numbered things, so long as there aren’t only exactly 2 of them.


  • But then I decided, I wrote my own solution, a thing of 1,600 lines of code, which is, yeah, it’s like thousands of times less than the competition.

    And it works. It’s very popular. … I got 100 emails from people saying that it’s so nice that someone wrote a small piece of software that is robust, does not have dependencies, you know how it works.

    But the depressing thing is, some of the security people in the field, they thought it was a lovely challenge to audit my 1,600 lines of code. And they were very welcome to do that, of course. And they found three major vulnerabilities in there.

    He makes a ton of excellent points, but the succinct impact of this little example really hit for me. As someone who often rewrites things so that I can both understand and fully trust in what I’m depending on, it’s always good to be reminded that you literally can’t write 500 lines of code without a good chance of introducing a major vulnerability.

    The tech stack is so dizzyingly high today, and with so many interlocking parts, it continually amazes me that anything at all functions even in the absence of hostile actors.