We can't come up with anything better because we're using a term that would include anything better we come up with. There are religious studies in science! And if you suddenly had most of discoveries from revelation, that'd still be part of some old or new scientific discipline.
So you're mostly amazed by your own vocabulary papering over all the nonsense it includes
You think that's better than the work that preceded peer review, by people like Einstein, Bunsen, Kelvin, Planck, Darwin, Maxwell, Mendeleev, Michelson, Steinmetz, Faraday, Davy, Haber, Tesla, etc.? Because I have to say I find the pre-peer-review papers to generally be of much higher quality.
How did you come to the conclusion that those have not been peer-reviewed? Every uni course that presents the work of these people implicitly reviews it for consistency, and the advanced practices courses repeat their experiments.
"The system of peer review" in this context is the system where a scholarly journal editor sends your submitted paper out to other experts in the field to decide whether or not to publish it. This system came into use in the middle of the 20th century, and Einstein was famously outraged by it. It does not refer generically to every time someone reads or discusses a paper or replicates an experiment.
I don't think survivorship bias is particularly relevant for three reasons. First, both papers from 50 years ago and papers from 150 years ago are already heavily filtered. Second, if you look at journal issues from 150 years ago, you will find forgotten papers in the same issue with the foundational ones, and the quality is still much better than today's forgotten papers. Third, what I'm really concerned about is not that bad papers about bad research are being published, but that good papers about good research that would have been done are not, echoing Higgs's remark about how he couldn't have done his work on the Higgs boson today because he wouldn't get tenure. Or, read Freeman Dyson's autobiography, and contrast the years when he was working on nuclear energy to the rather uninspired following 50 years, because, as he put it, it stopped being fun.
You're still too vague. Do you mean the <100 old peer review system? And that it's better than all the scientific discoveries of the past thousands of years?
Science doesn't provide a Priest who will show up and sit with you at your time of grief or despair in handling the unpredictable. Priests in all religions are trained to occupy that space. And that is the prime reason Religions have survived for thousands of years long past the death of empires, kings and nations who all get tired or bored of showing up and occupying the unpredictability space.
Lot of that Despair is thanks to how the architecture of the chimp brain handles unpredictability over different time horizons - whats the system going to do tomorrow/next month/next year/next decades. Confidence decreases anxiety increases. You want to break the architecture keep feeding it the unpredictable.
So we get the corporal hudson in aliens cycle - "I'm ready, man. Check it out. I am the ultimate badass. State of the badass art" > unpredictability > "Whats happening man! Now what are we supposed to do? Thats it man. Game over man. Game over!"
I have considered the problem of how the strong social benefits and cohesion of religion might be reproduced in some way not tied to the very strange attractor of identity based beliefs and shibboleths.
Science, democracy, religion. Three curses. Each embodying ideals. Each the best choice we have for the areas where they do or have functioned well. Each presenting challenges, and dysfunctional local maxima, as maintenance/optimization problems.
Of the three, science's self-correcting basis does make it the least problematic.
In the highest contrast, mathematics foundations are only weak if you look! Whereas the piles built on debatably wobbly foundations hold up extremely well.
I too prefer Vue over React. I still haven't checked out Svelte, and I'm completely over Angular by now.
React looked great when I first used it for something really small. It looked horrific when I used it on a massive project with ridiculous amounts of data and tons of middleware. Although the real horror was the useEffect spaghetti. Vue keeps looking reasonable in every project I encounter it in. Even when people use it poorly, it's never Vue itself that's the problem. Well, maybe when people start working around the reactivity. That can get really bad.
Yeah, because people are overly sensitive and can't bear the thought that someone might make some harmless naughty jokes. It's a completely ridiculous name change.
> people are overly sensitive and can't bear the thought that someone might make some harmless naughty jokes
ironmagma could have said:
> people are overly sensitive and avoid talking about Coq at work and in general
Both can be motivating factors, but not necessarily. It's possible that the Coq development team doesn't care about the jokes, but they do care about people being comfortable saying the name aloud at work.
One of my coworkers uses Siri to say what they want to search for. I'm definitely not saying: "Hey, Siri, show me examples of using Coq."
Then, users of search engines will add "training," "in the workplace," "visual guide," "positions," "freelance work with," etc. Everything people use with programming languages or book titles becomes inappropriate with that name.
Maybe if I worked on a chicken farm it would be OK. I'm in the hotel and retail industries doing a mix of hands-on work and customer service. You'll never hear me tell my bosses I was using that on the job. Or spending hours alone with Isabelle for that matter. HOL4 & HOL Light it is!
That probably won't be a problem since the words have known contexts in America. Coq will bring up only two meanings in most people's minds. Of the two, rooster isn't the most, common use in many places.
Far as my above examples, they were things that might lead to porn in a search engine. Especially if it's a newer product that hasn't had as much work go into preventing that as Google did.
When you go to the downloads, it is actually Coq again. It was a ridiculous name, yes, but that name change is even more ridiculous. Most people are still calling it Coq, past research papers are calling it Coq, and Prince is still Prince and not the symbol.
Is not the purpose of Kagi that it isn't like Google/Bing excessively buying into LLM hype? I just want an independent sustainable search engine, that's all.
> It just basically does everything React does but better
SolidJS still has some major pain points; the one I found was not knowing whether a prop was a signal or needed to become one. The type system doesn't help much. In React, you know for sure that if your reference changes, the component reading that reference as a prop will re-render. In Solid, it's less clear whether the update will be observed.
isLoading should be a boolean; it will maintain referential equality across renders and not cause a re-render unless it is an actual edge from false to true or vice versa.
what? what does what you said have anything to do with what I said? how does "data flowing down" now related to the use effect dependency cycle? are you new to programming?
Nearly every UNIX command has its own way of formatting output, be it into columns, tables, lists, files, or TTYs (and windows, à la emacs, screen, other curses-based utils...). Even `ls` has a table formatting logic to it. This keeps the UNIX native abstraction relatively simple; everything is "just text." But the ecosystem, being quite rich, actually has a lot of divergent requirements for each utility. If that was avoidable, we probably would have seen some other abstractions appear on top of "just text," but we similarly haven't.
This is definitely a surprising opinion to find on HN. Usually the prevailing thought is that anything that is even remotely heavy on JavaScript is bad design and therefore inherently unusable, unportable, etc. Whereas this is essentially JavaScript maximalism.
Part of it is that so many sites are JS heavy in a way which brings basically nothing to the table.. it's just JS for JS' sake, and sometimes a static web site would work just as well for the user.
I think it depends. I basically see the web as two parts, "web documents" (usually called "websites") and "web apps" (usually just called apps), and it makes sense that web apps that require lots of interactivity (think drag and drop) would use lots of JavaScript, I don't people have a problem with image editors or map viewers being made more simple by the use of JS for example.
The friction occurs when people building a website for web documents think they should be building a web app, so you end up with a scaffolding that requires heavy JS just to serve what essentially is just text + maybe one or two images. The additional JS doesn't really save the user any time or pain, it just makes everything larger and harder to consume.
I write a lot of code myself and am usually against indiscriminate use of JS (so much so that I now recommend old fashioned server side templates over SPAs unless there is a good reason). But for this comment, I was donning my other hat: that of an executive with whom the decision to adopt (and pay for) a product usually rests. The bulk of a SaaS company's marketing budget goes to attracting and retaining the attention of such people, and ultimately getting them to pay. I feel this site does a good job of that without wasting my time.
By "you", do you mean the typical commenters on HN? Because I would agree. So many assume that because JavaScript is used, therefore there is a bad/overcomplicated UI. But any technology can be used to create crap.
Perhaps the amount of JavaScript used in a website is not a contributing factor into how usable a person finds it /s.
Honestly, you don't judge a back-end by how much code it's built with or what platform it's hosted on. I don't get the obsession people have with JavaScript used on websites. Websites with terrible UX often abuse JavaScript yes, but correlation != causation.
They can go in the inspector and see “oh wow so many MBs of JS”, but they can’t see the backend.
There is a good point to that: this data that is downloaded is an end user resource. Over a mobile network etc it’ll matter. But the days where it mattered at home/office are long, long gone, at least for the audience of the websites that adopt this strategy.
The obsession I believe is a remnant of these old days. There was a transitionary period still a decade ago (when hn was already not that young) where users would spend time loading a website, then complain about the amount of js on the page and how that is unnecessary. The connections got upgraded but nothing strikes down a habit…
More like they can see it but also can't see it. There's megabytes of JS loaded just to show me a crappy glorified PDF that doesn't even work properly. A page I could have literally made using only HTML and CSS and it would be better, but somehow you've made it take 11mb of JavaScript code and it doesn't even work properly. That's the kind of website I scoff at.
I have no issues at all with this website. It's awesome. I mean it's a bit slow but that's probably because it's on the front page on HN right now - yet it still works pretty well. The design is delightful. Incredibly well done. One of the coolest websites I've seen. Who cares how much JS it takes, it's obviously worth it.
