IIRC Windows 9x & ME were based on (MS)DOS; but 2k and XP were based on NT, which was quite different.

(Note sure what those differences actually are, since I only started programming once I'd switched to Linux...)

Thankfully user-chrome still seems to work, so these things can be overridden (and LLMs make those overrides easier to write & maintain).

Why would non-technical users be looking at raw URLs? Surely links "look like" blue underlined text; or a button; or whatever?

IPFS is not "blockchain" or "crypto"(currency).

It's much closer to git-over-bittorrent. Note that both of those things were decentralised long before "blockchain" and "crypto" existed.

The makers of IPFS also made a crypto thing called Filecoin; but that's a different project. Avoiding IPFS because of crypto is like avoiding the Web because of social media.

Unfortunately that hasn't panned out; but it still feels more feasible than getting Microsoft and Apple to add it to their OS network stacks.

There is already a perfectly good incentive mechanism: if someone wants to host some data, they can; and if nobody wants to host it, it doesn't get hosted.

That's worked perfectly well for HTTP, without any shitcoin needed. The advantage of IPFS is that its URLs resolve to anybody who cares enough to host that data; so links will only 404 when nobody cares (unlike HTTP, which relies on a single point of failure).

> a libertarian decentralized P2P E2EE communication project

Your argument makes sense for Freenet (though I'd personally defend that project too); but not so much for IPFS.

Firstly, IPFS doesn't have any encryption (E2E or otherwise).

Also, Freenet spreads data around the network (for robustness and plausible-deniability), so the peers providing a file are not the peers which inserted it. IPFS does no such thing: if you want your content to remain available, you'd better be running an IPFS node that provides it.

Either way, it feels like a pretty bad idea to host dodgy stuff on IPFS.

IPFS is much closer to HTTP. The difference is that content is immutable, and can be re-hosted by anyone that happens to have a copy (e.g. no need for mirrors, etc.).

(Note that HTTP was invented to disseminate physics research; not CSAM)

> Protocol Labs is an innovation network driving breakthroughs in computing to push humanity forward. PL connects more than 750 tech startups, funds, accelerators, foundations, open source projects, service providers, and other organizations.

What happened to them? Seems like they drank their own "Web3" Fla-Vor-Aid.

Regarding an "update path", GNS has support for that built-in; though I've not been able to try it myself, since I can't get GNUNet to bootstrap :-(

I've found https://github.com/shcv/parenmedic to be somewhat helpful, which diagnoses parentheses issues based on when they disagree with indentation, rather than simply counting. The fact this works indicates that LLMs are paying more attention to whitespace than "actual structure".

"Total Wormage" was on the Amiga, which became the original Worms. It was ported to other machines after:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_(series)#Development

https://worms2d.info/Total_Wormage

> an expansion to the original

Not sure about DOS versions, but Worms: The Director's Cut is a heavily-expanded version of the original: more weapons, custom levels (allowing 16 colours instead of 8, IIRC), etc. Highly recommended!

I agree they're not as capable as Claude Sonnet, but they're much cheaper.

Apologies, I've not written Scala for many years; I just recalled that there was a way to annotate tail calls which the compiler checks. I didn't realise it was so limited!

I personally use the phrase "tail call elimination" when it's a requirement that can be relied on; and "tail call optimisation" when it might be implementation-dependent, context-dependent, limited (e.g. to immediate self-calls), etc.

Yes, trivially. Just look at the opposite end of each metric. Pareto optimality doesn't know/care what each metrics means, since it keeps them all separate.