Curt Doolittle

Form: Short Note

  • STUFF) (updated) Ok, I am pretty deep in this nouveau-javascript stack now, and

    http://caniuse.com/#feat=shadowdomv1(TECHIE STUFF)

    (updated)

    Ok, I am pretty deep in this nouveau-javascript stack now, and you know, I’ve been writing software since … like 1974? And i’ve gone through every generation of hardware and software. And while the DOM is a certainly bad architecture for rendering applications. And while rendering only differences between the DOM and the virtual Dom is an interesting solution. And while ‘the kids’ are coming out with new ‘solutions’ every day now. This is all really just a lot of hacking to get around a pretty simple problem that should be built into the browser, and have nothing to do with software: the continuously updated DOM is a shitty design for the current state of the internet, and there is no reason that the same work being done today by hand is not built into the browser engine.

    I’ve look at literally hundreds of applications over the past few months, and I’ve gone through all the application architectures (what is now called more correctly ‘patterns’), and this has got to be the least maintainable generation of software I have seen in my lifetime … other than the PREVIOUS generation of hacks to make the browser do what it hasn’t in the past.

    So the better question is, why can’t browser engines do the diff and only update the necessary DOM elements? Why can’t we create ‘stores’ in the damned DOM?

    I just don’t understand why a developer’s job isn’t limited to creating components, collecting events and issuing state changes. It’s not like this is rocket science.

    “Props”? And you thought softly typed languages were a problem?

    A module with type declarations outside the class? Oh… and you know why we spend so much time writing tests? Because instead of 90% of our work being pointer and memory maintenance in the past, (a failure of operating systems to invent an adequate means of garbage collection – ie: microsoft dot net) we’re compensating for a failure of a language interpreter (in the browser) to compensate for all the natural fuck ups humans make when doing this kind of nonsense. omg. this is insane.

    And yes, I like writing object oriented code (c++ etc) or functional code (pascal), because its freaking MAINTAINABLE. I am not sure what this is supposed to be called, but making up a new name for ‘shitty disorganized code that compensates for a shitty data model (the DOM) and it’s operating system (the browser) is the OPPOSITE of what the free software movement should have brought us: a conflict of priorities and no jury (management team) to demand changes.

    argh…

    Vent off.

    lol

    UPDATE:

    1 – it’s in current versions of chrome and opera. Scheduled for the rest.

    http://caniuse.com/#feat=shadowdomv1

    2 – it’s weak but it’s progress. 🙂

    https://www.w3.org/TR/shadow-dom/

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 15:57:00 UTC

  • The ‘discussion’ liberty needs is the ‘reconciliation’ between Hoppe and I. In n

    The ‘discussion’ liberty needs is the ‘reconciliation’ between Hoppe and I. In no small part because he is the only person with the requisite knowledge to hold such a discussion. I have been a bit of an ass (more than a bit of an ass) because I was so angry with the deception of the cosmopolitans that I let it influence me. But my view is that it would be better for his movement to have an evolution with my restatement in scientific language, than an extinction with his death. I would also radically improve the quality of his ‘Salon’.

    I would crucify anyone from the mises institute. No way will they touch me. No one there both intellectually capable and intellectually honest other than Hoppe.

    Molyneux has converted from wanna-be-philosohper, to the best critic of common ideas that is working today. And so I would like to help him ‘evolve’ from hopeful ‘liberty’ to acceptance ‘sovereignty’.

    Cantwell’s Interesting because his sentiments appear pretty good.

    I like Watson but I’m not big on critique, and that’s his schtick.

    The think tanks are all burned other than Heritage. And even heritage still practitioners of the ‘hopeful’ folly. I don’t see heritage talking to me any time soon.

    My view (and why we need the propertarian institute) is to create a new think tank that isn’t a media outlet, but that literally TRAINS prosecutors (think jesuits / inquisition / templars ).

    I thought I had this worked out economically but I’ve got more work to do now. We can do it. And when we do that’s the thing. Training is worth paying for (albeit small amounts) and we do not need to beg for donations, only try to build an endowment.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 15:35:00 UTC

  • yes i think framing nat-soc as a post-mystical religion is correct. Too bad they

    yes i think framing nat-soc as a post-mystical religion is correct. Too bad they blew it by seeking a government rather than a church.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 10:07:00 UTC

  • (sleep, prescriptions, protein. otherwise I’m useless.)

    (sleep, prescriptions, protein. otherwise I’m useless.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 09:46:00 UTC

  • Reasoning via negativa. You know a rather large number of my positions are drawn

    Reasoning via negativa.

    You know a rather large number of my positions are drawn from the observations of the kinds of errors humans make, rather than some particular insight about the subject matter.

    you can, if you have the time, master pretty much every field on this earth in one lifetime. You cannot master it’s protocols, processes, and habits, but you can at least grasp the methodology each discipline employs – and they’re all relatively similar. The fact that each is expressed in teh class and IQ range of the practitioners simply confuses us – we think it is all more complex than it is.

    And if you know what common ingorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading/framing/overloading, obscurantism/pseudoscience/pseudorationalism, and various forms of deceit people engage in then you can seek for examples of those things in the field, and then suggest alternatives.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 19:43:00 UTC

  • WORTH REPEATING (important concepts)

    WORTH REPEATING

    (important concepts)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:34:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 21:44:00 UTC

  • ERROR CORRECTION AND A RETURN TO CONQUEST? —“I’m seeing reports that indicate

    ERROR CORRECTION AND A RETURN TO CONQUEST?

    —“I’m seeing reports that indicate that we’ve captured most of the low-hanging fruit of exploration now, and our returns on exploration are continually reducing (collecting boulders > rocks > pebbles > sand) .

    Now it seems that we may be best employed by trying to use our discoveries more efficiently, removing error (refining). Perhaps this is the Olympian stage that has to result from the end of the Faustian evolution. (Punctuated Equilibrium).”—William Butchman

    In other words there is an inverse relationship between investment and return on exploration. And as a consequence an increasing return ON CONQUEST AND DOMESTICATION.

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 19:50:00 UTC

  • NO ITS NOT FAUSTIAN (a) sovereignty/heroism and (b) lower impulsivity / higher s

    NO ITS NOT FAUSTIAN

    (a) sovereignty/heroism and (b) lower impulsivity / higher separation of mind and intuition/ lower susceptibility to ‘dream state'(conflation) higher tendency of ‘reality’, (c) higher incidence of neuroticism (worry, obsession, future orientation), (d) balance of verbal / spatial abilities. (e) lower clannishness.

    I know all of these are basically true but wether we possessed them all in prehistory (“Yaman”) or whether we evolved them since then, or some combination is hard to tell.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 15:07:00 UTC

  • Grades and Age demonstrate only that one is not terribly defective. The major va

    Grades and Age demonstrate only that one is not terribly defective.

    The major variations between groups and classes are (a) rate of maturity, (b) depth of sexual maturity (aggression, degree of success at pedomorphic reproduction), and (c) genetic quality (physical symmetry/health, impulsivity, conscientiousness, intelligence, gender symmetry. All of which can most easily be categorized under successful pedomorphic reproduction.

    Childhood is an artificial modern construct for the purpose of adding women to the workforce for the purpose of increasing tax revenues. This has culminated in the current generation as ‘infantilization’ of the millennials. however, a human being does not really ‘mature’ until past his or her prime mating years (25). Conversely, a human being can mentally mature in mid teens with sufficient responsibilities (female reproduction, male military service, and work).

    Women mature faster than men – men specialize and take longer.

    Blacks faster than middle easterners, faster than mediterraneans, faster than europeans, faster than east asians. Hence testosterone differences.

    The problem? Not enough stressors.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 14:53:00 UTC