You can still write JS or TypeScript code that tries its best to keep memory use under check. JavaScript was around in the late 90s when the memory footprint of software was at least an order of magnitude lower, so it's absolutely doable.
You don't have to go that deep. 99% of the time our analytics or risk management teams have some really memory inefficient Python and they want me to write them one of our "magic C things" it turns out to be fixable by replacing their in-memory iterations with a generator.
Most people don't have the chance to do that, but hopefully we can see some other languages get first class access on the web. At least there is the whole WASM project.
> and it doesn't disminish the quality of the work.
It does affect incoming people hearing about the work.
I applaud your instinct to defend someone who put in effort. It's one of the most important things we can do.
Another important thing we can do for them is be honest about our own reactions. It's not sunshine and rainbows on its face, but, it is generous. Mostly because A) it takes time B) other people might see red and harangue you for it.
(Interestingly, I would have said that the translation I read came from Project Gutenberg, but it wasn't the one I just linked and no other is currently available there. Does Project Gutenberg take down existing versions of out-of-copyright books sometimes??)
There are multiple older translations, but Project Gutenberg only has one at the moment. I'm conjecturing that they used to have a different one (also out of copyright; that's their whole thing), but have taken it down for unclear reasons.
It's also possible that I found a free translation of The Three Musketeers somewhere else, or that I read the same version PG has now and have misidentified it as being different.
and if you hire only based on solely on employee compliance then you are also probably missing the wood for the trees. I've worked in such orgs and they're extremely vulnerable to cargo culting.
I’m not hiring on compliance. I’ve accepted that his answer is correct but asked for the purposes of the exercise if he can put that to a side so we can talk about it. I’ve worked with and hired people like this and they tend to turn every molehill into a mountain, which is just killer on a small team.
I was just having a quick search and the only email I can find that offered a price range up front was for $0.1-0.4 per user, and that was from 2023. So I assume up to a dollar per user these days?
What do you mean? I was always under the impression that archives are for accessing a copy when the original is hard to access - this seems like the perfect use case.
Bypassing a paywall does sound a bit like piracy, if you think about it. This is what the commenter is referring to (tho in this case, I don't see a paywall on the article this end.)
Advertisements and web tracking feel like stalking. I’ll pay for content when the content providers respect my attention and privacy and not until then.
This isn't archive.org. Archive.is (and its many TLD equivalents) is explicitly for bypassing paywalls like this, and this is absolutely the intended use.
9 times out of ten it's because sites use cloaking and serve up all of the contents to search bots, but then paywall out end users, so it's kind of a hoisted by their own petard kind of situation.
And, I mean, people can choose to not follow those links. To the rest of us they're often very welcome, and we aren't subscribing to every random site for the once in a millennia worthwhile article.
The site existed for most of a decade before it had any particular paywall bypassing. It's an ondemand archival site that saves the DOM in such a way that redisplay is faithful, unlike archive.org.
It's a key resource in court cases for purely archival purposes and the fact that it bypasses paywalls is essential for its archival purpose to function.
Yeah, sure (sarcastic). And people mostly use torrents to share Linux distros.
The site/org has no office and is anonymously run virtually. Exists on random, essentially free for all TLDs, does not honour take-down requests, does not respect robots.txt, masquerades as the Googlebot...
...yeah, I happen to have not been born yesterday so I'm not going to play along with a fiction.
Nothing I said was rude or adversarial, so not sure why you decided to be rude and adversarial here.
My sarcasm was to the purported original goal, when it has always, since day one, been a fake Googlebot known, again since day 1, as a circumvention of paywalls for sites that cloak.
well if you declare that nothing you said was rude (i.e. no sarcasm, which is rude) or adversarial, then I similarly declare that nothing I said claimed otherwise :) so what are you talking about, then?
When giant IP corporations violate IP, that's very different from Joe Rando watching a movie for free. It's way worse, on multiple levels, for rule-makers to break rules than for ordinary people to.
> It's way worse, on multiple levels, for rule-makers to break rules than for ordinary people to.
The purpose of the system is what it does. Yet the system routinely persecutes ordinary people for this criminal offense while giant IP corporations just treat it as an opening move in corporate deal-making.
reply