I would love to know what it would cost to subscribe to a newspaper that gets revenue only from subscribers and runs no ads. Is it so high that nobody tries?
An "ad-free" subscription to The Guardian is $18 per month ($15 starter, students $10 a year).
They aren't funded exclusively by subscribers because that would exclude a source of revenue that enables cheaper subscriptions. But you can have no ads for a reasonable premium.
Yep. Professional journals can be a few 100s$ per year. So you could get quality journalism, it would just be for very few people compared to the masses.
Historically, public/mass news services were dependent on adverts or classifieds to pay for their running. That business has been consumed by ad tech.
YouTube has become a source for journalism now, but the viability of newspapers and local beats has reduced.
I've been a subscriber of a dutch online-only publication called 'de correspondent' . It's ok (quit good sometimes). But you can sense they have a sliver of the budget the big newspapers in my youth had.
I would add another important caveat to this: no dark patterns in subscriptions (like call to cancel), and a reasonable price on the subscription. I would gladly pay for something like this
This is a terrifying exploit ("yes, absolutely"), but it is a one-time exploit that is not intended for sustained data xfer. It steals your initial cryptoseed (via SPI display linkage; no cryptographic exploit of ledger device is publicly-known, yet), and only has to broadcast one time from its literally-hand-wound antenna.
I believe one million+ devices are "suspected."
----
I'm just beginning to play around with Docker, and I have a spare eWaste Intel 4xxx (with dual PCI slots and two 56k modems!~); hoping that my own MacBook can "dock" in to my landline's RJ-11 "virtually" – that I can figure this out with LLMS as a dumbass electrician is incredible! – exciting stuff to learn'bout.
They could if they wanted to, I’m a bit surprised that they didn’t add it with this big new MBP generation.
Especially now that they have their own modem and wouldn’t need to pay whatever royalties Qualcomm would demand, which I’ve read are based on the device price and would get very high on a premium laptop.
There was a prototype macbook pro on ebay from 20 years ago with a 3G modem in it, the retail MBP from the time even has the space for a SIM card near the battery door. Presumably they decided against it for a good reason.
They're not fully confident yet on the mmWave to go in the Macbook.
There's a reason they carefully have been bringing their own modem in via "weird" devices. The C1 came in on the 16e, C1X was the Air (phone+iPad), and they're finally confident enough to bring C2 to the mainline iPhones, but it seems like maybe not ready until C3 comes around next fall.
Just buy a different laptop - not an ultra-thin one. The WiFi card is usually on a separate module that plugs in by a standard connector and can be swapped to a cellular module.
This is the same problem a lot of leaders have in all kinds of work. It is often possible to delegate a task. But if one delegates understanding, one is at a disadvantage when compared to an organization where leadership understands the task.
When I was in charge of companies, I understood the technical tasks, but delegated understanding of things like tax law. This was okay, but I was definitely at a disadvantage compared to companies that could better optimize capital allocation around understanding of tax law.
AI means more humans in every organization are having to learn how to be managers/leaders of these agents. Those who actually understand the work they delegate will maintain an advantage over those who do not.
I am still using XSLT. I have been using it for 26 years. I generate XML documents on the backend and turn them into HTML for various reports. XSLT has a lot of features and power that newer templating languages lack.
Are any of these newer templating languages worth me switching?
Semi-serious suggestion: wrap the files in an (X)HTML page that links to a Javascript file loading a full XML parser compiled to WebAssembly, which then does the full transformation live, in-browser. You wouldn't need to change your templates or your generation logic much if you structure the surrounding skeleton right!
Of course, you'd need to get over the lunacy of loading a full DOM transformation library into the browser DOM.
you also need to get over the fact that this doesn't work while disabling javascript, while built in xslt doesn't need javascript. on the other hand though it's not a big loss given that xslt isn't any safer. anyone who turns off javascript probably ought to have turned of xslt as well.
but that just aside. the last time this was discussed a year ago i actually tried to find a working solution to load xslt through javascript and could not find any.
i only got as far as verifying that js can be loaded from an xml mimetype. xslt implementations in js also exist. what's missing is the wrapper code to load the xslt library and run it over the xml and xslt files.
perhaps now with this seriously being needed by a few sites someone will have the time to get this working.
My thought wasn't so much "do XSLT parsing in Javascript" and more "compile a C program to apply XSLT transformations using emscriptem and embed that". You can probably throw that concept into any slop machine and get a cursed compatibility library out of it.
Their comment isn’t clear if they’re doing the transform on the server before piping it down as HTML, which some implementations have done over the years as it provided access to newer XSLT features that browsers stagnated on.
In an XML document a "processing instruction" can trigger the XSLT processor to transform the document in another format.
So an XML document would be parsed and processed by the XML engine, trigger XSLT processor, which would then trigger again the XML processor again and the HTML processor.
So XSLT processing for XML/XHTML is deeply embedded. Dropping it removes a lot of corner cases that AI is good at exploiting.
The cool thing with a wasm-based xslt implementation is there is no need for the browser vendors to gate-keep it. Just use the implementation you prefer.
Except XSLT dates back to the late 90s. WASM was not even a glint in the eyes of its creators. Mozilla even used XSLT internally to drive the GUI for their browser iirc. I think based on that there is a good reason it was incorporated into browsers.
If they were going to implement it themselves it would be unnecessary to faff around with webassembly. They could just keep the native code implementation that they already have.
The problem is that XSLT has so few users that the browser writers don't want to waste any more time on it. Those few people who wrote their site around it will have to either rewrite it to use something else or add some third party webassembly implementation themselves.
XSLT is not going away, it is only in-browser XSLT which is removed. If you are happy with XSLT there is no need to abandon it. Just perform the transformation on the backend.
Flash went away because Steve Jobs made an impassioned plea to find a better way and follow their humble browser which only had single digit percentages of marketshare at the time.
Flash went away because Steve Jobs made an impassioned plea to find a better way and follow their humble browser which only had single digit percentages of marketshare at the time.
You're half right.
Yes, Jobs killed Flash. But he did it because Flash on mobile was a battery killer. And when the original iPhone came out (one of which I still have), battery technology wasn't as advanced as it is now.
Before I got my wife's hand-me-down iPhone, I had one of the few mobile phones that supported Flash. On the few occasions when I used the web browser, I lived in fear that I'd land on a web site that was using Flash because I knew it would tear through the phone's battery in less than 10 minutes.
Ever notice that the people on HN who pine for the good-ol'-days of Flash only remember games? Never the Flash ads and intrusive videos.
Even for enthusiastic Android vendors who saw it as a differentiating feature from iPhone, Flash still took three years from the iPhone launch to have its first release. Adobe was really in poor shape to port Flash to a new platform. Waiting for them as a vendor to bump their proprietary platform vs integrating support for the features into the browser would have cost years for mobile adoption.
> Adobe was really in poor shape to port Flash to a new platform
I wouldn't say poor. Adobe had its own creative-software empire to up-keep. Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, and its web-authoring products gave it enormous influence over creative professionals. Macromedia's Dreamweaver and Flash were serious competitors in web design and interactive media. Adobe needed the missing monopoly cards; Flash, Fireworks and Dreamweaver were them.
Flash was security ridden yes, Flash required a plugin, yes; I don't think supported AppleOS at the time. These could of all been solved but I would agree that to refactor the software would of been an expensive take.
Jobs + HTML5, WebGL, JS all had entered the ring and finished the blow.
I miss it. Growing up with the internet in 2003, 2010's was the end of the wild world web. 2020's was the era of walled gardens for which we now have LLM's for the theme park and we're now entering 2030 where the internet is on fire with creativity now wrung between Yes Ai and No Ai.
Domain name:
lordsephiroth.co.uk
Relevant dates:
Registered on: 18-Nov-2003
My first ever domain name, registered with my pocket money at the age of 13. Hopefully 2040 should bring world peace. One would hope.
Yes and no, canvas was fine for replacing flash, and JS performance was good enough quickly.
Audio however was a crapshoot for years, especially for games.
Even basic WebAudio took until 2015, and the final piece to match Flash being AudioWorklet was only first available in 2018(Chrome) and took until April _2021_ land in Safari.
So before 2021 you needed to either write your own abstractions to support multiple API's with different execution models with so-so capabilties to be somewhat on-par with what Flash provided or even for years resort to simpler solutions (ie just samples).
Nobody uses XSLT and nobody maintains XSLT. You're free to support it in your own browser but it's not reasonable to expect Mozilla to support XSLT any more than it supports VRML.
reply