So you need to find something better. In an article "How NASA writes 'perfect' software (1996) (fastcompany.com)" (comments on HN), the author explains that adding GPS support required 1500 pages of spec, and to avoid ambiguity the spec used pseudo code to describe expected features and behaviors.
If you invent a formal language that is easy to read and easy to write, it may look like Python... Then someone will probably write an interpreter.
We have many languages, senior people who know how to use them, who enjoy coding and who don't have a "lack of productivity" problem. I don't feel the need to throw away everything we have to embrace what is supposed to be "the future". And since we need good devs to read and LLM generated code how to remain a good dev if we don't write code anymore ? What's the point of being up to date in language x if we don't write code ? Remaining good at something without doing it is a mystery to me.
Agree: house architects have their language (architectural plans) to translate people needs in non ambiguous informations that will be useful for those who build the house. Musician uses musical notes, physician uses schemas to represent molecules, etc... And programmers use programming languages, when we write a line of code we don't hope that the compiler will understand what we write. Musical notes are a kind of abstraction: higher level than audio frequency but lower level than natural language. Same for programming language. Getting rid of all the formal languages take us back 2000 years ago.
Using a formal language also help to enter in a kind of flow. And then details you did not think about before using the formal language may appear. Everything cannot be prompted, just like Alex Honnold prepared his climbing of El Capitan very carefully but it's only when he was on the rock that he took the real decisions. Same for Lindbergh when he crossed the Atlantic. The map is not the territory.
I have a dumb phone, my last smartphone was a blackberry, 7 or 8 years ago. To people who ask me how can I "live" without a smartphone I answer: I have a computer.
Everyday I have access to my computer, and since nothing is absolutely urgent I can book train tickets from home, read hacker news from home, etc... I spend several hours per day at home with my laptop so when I am outside I don't need to be online.
I don't listen music when outside since I feel more connected to where I am (sea shore, forest, city, etc...) if I don't listen music.
I nearly don't need take pictures anymore and when I do I have a camera.
I never had an account on social medias and even if I did I would have disable all notifications.
No need for a GPS, usually I know where I am going and if I don't I check on a map before and remind the path (exit metro station, first on left, second on right, done), if I get lost I ask to someone, then happen a true connection to a human being. Road trips: paper maps, I traveled alone from San Diego to New-York like that, including reaching a specific address in Chicago and then in New-York with a paper map. And I like the voice of my wife telling me "in 2km we must take the D25 on the right" (names of secondary roads in France starts with D).
We have a sailboat so we need gps when we sail and we have a rugged tablet. We also use it at home as a remote control for the DAC with Qobuz and for video calls with family with Signal. A smartphone can makes sense in several occasion, like does out tablet, but I don't feel the need to have one (a kind of mini computer) in my pocket all the time.
And since urgent calls can only comes from my wife or from the school (we have a son), when we are together with our son we don't take our dumbphone (nokia 105) with us.
I think anyone can buy a dumbphone for 20$ or € and try for a week.
Without the proxy the client would request a specific instance of the API (university 1, university 2, NGO 1, NGO 2), which then would be responsible for forwarding the data to the other. What if he changes the code and forward a false data:
user A votes for candidate X (HTTP POST request received by API deployed at university 1). API deployed at university A is compromised (by the university itself or not) and the information persisted in the DB is "user A votes for candidate Y". This information is then forwarded to other API.
no, no forwarding. have the client contact all sites directly.
> What if he changes the code and forward a false data:
Presumably you will find a cryptographer to help you construct a scheme preventing this via cryptographic signatures. You'd do well to investigate prior art.
You're right, we can get rid of the proxy. If the multiple API calls are made from the browser it is even more traceable, user can see these requests in the source code and from the devtools network console.
Each API has its database which contains the accesskey for each user, if this data is stolen the attacker can send HTTP POST requests to API with valid access key. To reject these forged request a code can be sent to the user in the invitation message while each database has a bcrypt hash of the code along the access key. When an API receives a POST requests it can check if the code present in the request body matches with the hash he has in its database. So having the access key is not enough to send request, someone who steal a db cannot do anything with the data and cannot propagate false data to other APIs.
Owing something usually give you the exclusive use of it but does not allow you to do what you want with it. You cannot walk in the street with a running chain saw even if you own it. Same thing with your car, you must respect a lot of rules. If you own a Picasso you cannot burn it. It is a political choice to let someone destroy a forest but not a Picasso.
Interesting. Seeing as you need a licence to export certain works of art and antiques (from the UK) I wouldn't be surprised if there's a rule to prevent people from destroying a painting. However, I've never heard of such a rule. Perhaps because it's not something that people usually want to do. (A Picasso might not be old enough to be protected as an antique, of course.)
If you live in the US you can do that, and you can and will be prosecuted under the 1990 Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA). Other industrialized nations tend to have similar protections. People always have the choice to break the law, and if you go so far as to do something irreversible (like burn an original Picasso) a jury of your peers might not be so understanding of your god-granted individual liberty to be a Vandal.
It is question asked by the soup thrown at paintings in museums recently. Like saying "Why do you consider that paintings must be protected and not the possibility to keep living on this planet ?" At least it is how I interpret it.
It is about rules elaborated by an educated society. Not perfect rules, but at least rules that preserve what this society consider "important". Many example show that humans that live in a given place are very well aware of how important is a "healthy" ecosystem and give rights to "a good life" to this ecosystem: Wanganui river in New-Zeland, lac Erie in US (this attempt failed), constitution of Ecuador, etc... Elinor Ostrom wrote interesting about this rules (governing the commons), she had the nobel prize for that.
If you invent a formal language that is easy to read and easy to write, it may look like Python... Then someone will probably write an interpreter.
We have many languages, senior people who know how to use them, who enjoy coding and who don't have a "lack of productivity" problem. I don't feel the need to throw away everything we have to embrace what is supposed to be "the future". And since we need good devs to read and LLM generated code how to remain a good dev if we don't write code anymore ? What's the point of being up to date in language x if we don't write code ? Remaining good at something without doing it is a mystery to me.
reply