For today's lucky 10,000 who don't know what this is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_bomb

(See in particular the "Implementation" section where there's an explanation of how it works)

> there should be some cost for sending traffic somewher

So now, because of bad actors, I need to pay for the privilege of watching a website or using a service that was meant to be free? No, thanks.

I don't have a solution, but "break how the web currently works" is not one I would accept all willy nilly.

EDIT: yes, I realize we already broke the web (with Anubis, cloudflare, recaptcha etc) but I think we should resist slowly breaking it further.

> So now, because of bad actors, I need to pay for the privilege of watching a website or using a service that was meant to be free? No, thanks.

First of all - I suppose it should be very cheap. So, real humans will not pay much.

Second - why do u think that websites are meant to be free? They provide some service, so its a rather strange that the internet is so free (in both senses). I think, this freeiness is allowed to greatly speed up popularization. But for me is obvious that it can demand payment for service.

And third - service owner really meant it to be free, I don't see any problems with this in my idea. It can still provide free service.

I'm not saying websites can't demand payments for service, I'm just saying it's bad if it's a necessary fix for "scrapers are destroying the basic social contract of the web".

The internet is already like that, but for some reason the payment only extends as far as the recipient's ISP, not the actual recipient. Most senders pay a flat rate, but their ISP doesn't.

From context I'd say they meant "formerly" and that's just a typo. I didn't even notice the error before you pointed it out.

Yes, my bad! Typing on the terrible iPhone keyboard :)

It's like every time we discuss this on hn we have to go back to basics.

Builders/makers can be roughly subdivided into two camps: some like building for the final products; others like building for the process itself.

I'm in the latter camp. OP probably too. You probably are in the former.

And that's fine. But let's just stop pretending the other side doesn't exist.

EDIT: And this goes for OP as well. They forgot a lot of "for me"s in the article.

You don't need the "for me", it's implicit in it being an article written by someone in a casual setting. I'd argue the issue is that we as internet blog post readers treat these think pieces with more gravitas then they deserve as a baseline.

Good point

> and loved project here

You may want to check upthread how loved it is :)

I, for one, don't hate it, but I hate what it represents and see its existence (rather, the reason for its existence) as a defeat for the web.

I think they meant the same as the latin phrase "ante litteram"

I think the issue here might be that you're familiar with what "style" is supposed to be in music, so you know how imitating it would look (rather, sound) like.

On the contrary, you may have no idea what style means in the context of writing, so you can't fathom what imitating writing style looks like.

I honestly don't know precisely either, but a couple of things to mull over: Clarke and Asimov are said to have a "dry" style. Most of their novels are "story". On the contrary, Eco describes things in very minute detail (there's a whole chapter in "The name of the rose" that is the description of a door).

Those are examples of elements of style you may be able to reproduce and that aren't limited to wording.

Very interesting. Yes - the way the narrative is constructed is probably more accessible to understand.

> can often get concepts across faster than plain documentation by using imagery that would stand out in a plain readme

This reminds me of why's (poignant) guide to ruby

https://poignant.guide/book/chapter-1.html

I'm afraid you're in the wrong thread

Hahhh.. Thank you.

> As a Racketeer, it's my dream language. All the power of Racket...

Interesting. For me the interesting part of Racket has always been the language itself. What else is there that you like and can use from Rhombus?

“Easy to use and uniquely customizable”

The customizable aspect being an open-compiler API that is accessible to a wide audience.

I love parenthetical syntax but I accept that some people don’t like it and find it hard to work with.

I see Rhombus as taking a key innovation in Python - indentation syntax - and giving it an extensibility that is impossible to add to such an established language.