Originally, iframe were the solution, like the posts mentions. By the time iframes became unfashionable, nobody was writing HTML with their bare hands anymore. Since then, people use a myriad of other tools and, as also mentioned, they all have a way to fix this.
So the only group who would benefit from a better iframe is the group of people who don't use any tools and write their HTML with their bare hands in 2025. That is an astonishing small group. Even if you use a script to convert markdown files to blog posts, you already fall outside of it.
No-one needs it, so the iframe does not get reinvented.
No, originally frameset[0] and frame[1] were the solution to this problem. I remember building a website in the late 1990s with frameset. iframe came later, and basically allowed you to do frames without the frameset. Anyway, frameset is also the reason every browser's user agent starts with "Mozilla".
what if it could be a larger group though? modern css has been advancing rather rapidly... I don't even need a preprocessing library any more... I've got nested rules, variables, even some light data handling... why not start beefing up html too? we've got some new features but includes would be killer
> More and more I start to realize that cost saving is a small problem for local LLMs. If it is too slow, it becomes unusable, so much that you might as well use public LLM endpoints. Unless you really care about getting things done locally without sending information to another server.
There is another aspect to consider, aside from privacy.
These models are trained by downloading every scrap of information from the internet, including the works of many, many authors who have never consented to that. And they for sure are not going to get a share of the profits, if there is every going to be any. If you use a cloud provider, you are basically saying that is all fine. You are happy to pay them, and make yourself dependent on their service, based on work that wasn't theirs to use.
However, if you use a local model, the authors still did not give consent, but one could argue that the company that made the model is at least giving back to the community. They don't get any money out of it, and you are not becoming dependent on their hyper capitalist service. No rent-seeking. The benefits of the work are free to use for everyone. This makes using AI a little more acceptable from a moral standpoint.
The argument is that it simply improves the product. For instance, Github Copilot is apparently refusing to do anything with variable names like "trans" and anything related to sex or gender, regardless of the intended meaning. That is a serious flaw and makes the product less useful.
That is not relevant to the argument. Censoring limits possibilities. While that sometimes has its uses, the overly puritanical approach American companies generally take degrades the value of their products.
I am talking about an „open“ weight model you are talking about a service. If the service wants to censor that’s fine and on them and their leadership if an „open“ model gets released with censorship it’s not, because it’s just „open, but how my manager likes it“
The regular forges have just as many obstacles. You have to register an account, figure out whether the button you need is 'Pull Request' or 'Merge Request', and what the exact flow is.
The only reason things appeared simple in the past is because of GitHub's monopoly. As soon as you want to get rid of that, life gets more complicated. That is just another tradeoff you have to make.
I think bundling links is better than just throwing one out whenever you find it. If you get one link at a random time, you probably skip it. Unless you are a dopamine addict, in which case I just broke your concentration and fueled a bad habit.
A weekly, or monthly collection is something a reader can take their time for. Or put aside for a moment and come back later to it.
A downside of link bundles is that on an average blog, each installment becomes a page, and one has to click a lot before one gets to the interesting part.
My linkblog therefore sends a collection of links every week via RSS (and others like Bluesky, Mastodon, etc. will follow, if I ever take the time to implement it), but on the web it is just one long list, ready for consumption: https://ewintr.nl/linklog/
> I do find it interesting that so many people have such great problems with their searches
Even ignoring the quality of the results, the idea that people refuse to pay 10 dollars for something as essential to life as a search engine continues to baffle me.
I think we can all agree on a couple of points:
- Information shapes our thoughts and our behaviour.
- Search engines provide and direct us to the majority of the information we consume.
- Thus, search engines have a significant influence on our thoughts and our behaviour.
How anyone can then conclude that the search engine of a hyper capitalistic ad company is the best alternative, just because it is 10 dollars cheaper, is beyond me.
Because you cannot freely say no to that. They have authority over you. Even if they promise it won't affect their opinion of you, you never know if that is actually true. So you are forced to play along.
> They take valuable resources from legitimate functionality
Including our own. Ads are designed to pull our attention to them and away from what we want to be focused on. The goal is to forcibly embed something in our thoughts and/or feelings. Maybe it's a lie, or a false association, or an impression, or a fear. One way or another ads seek to manipulate us and like it or not we are all changed by them. We'll have a cure for cancer long before we get a cure for advertising.
Originally, iframe were the solution, like the posts mentions. By the time iframes became unfashionable, nobody was writing HTML with their bare hands anymore. Since then, people use a myriad of other tools and, as also mentioned, they all have a way to fix this.
So the only group who would benefit from a better iframe is the group of people who don't use any tools and write their HTML with their bare hands in 2025. That is an astonishing small group. Even if you use a script to convert markdown files to blog posts, you already fall outside of it.
No-one needs it, so the iframe does not get reinvented.