Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | atdixon's commentslogin

A quick clarification / extra context:

This is intentionally experimental and dev-first, not a startup pitch. Games are uploaded as static artifacts and run fully sandboxed in iframes (allow-scripts only) with no cookies or network access.

One unexpectedly hard/fun problem: making infinite scroll work well with lots of <canvas> on mobile (solved by caching/reusing iframes)

I'm not a game developer but writing/porting the (low-fi) reference games on the site took a few hours per game and reminded me how much fun programming can be.

Happy to answer questions or dig into the tech if ppl are curious.


It might help to imagine a different world.

One in which Mary steps out of her room, sees a rose, and absolutely nothing new is added to her understandings.

She already had it all sorted out in her study. In many people’s understanding of “naturalism” that wouldn’t be any surprise.

But that’s not this world.


If she truly possesses all physical knowledge, then she knows exactly what every possible rose looks like from every possible angle, in every possible setting and lighting. She knows in excruciating detail, at the level of every individual atom, how the scent of the rose will reach her brain, and exactly what responses it will trigger.

And indeed had she that knowledge, nothing new would be added by seeing one in person.

The implausible part is presupposing any person could ever have a complete enough understanding of all physical knowledge to achieve that.


> We don’t have a word for it because we don’t see that color.

I think you’re missing the argument.

We can easily assign words to things we know exist. That’s not the issue.

When we define things (like “naturalism”) we are invoking symbols and their semantics, all the stuff Mary presumably has access to in her room.

In her room, Mary already understands subjective experience, the brain mechanics behind it, etc.

The realization that there is more outside of Mary’s room suggests that our conceptualizations are limited / not accurate.

If that’s the agreed case how can anyone cling to a universal “naturalism” with a straight face?

With Mary’s room, haven’t we already accepted that formal statements are incomplete - and therefore would be silly to call universal?


Words don't excite the same bits of our brains as other physical experiences, so full knowledge of red through words and higher level thoughts is not enough for Mary. But assuming she has perfect knowledge of the the interaction of red wavelength with the eye and perfect knowledge of how the sensory input interacts with her brain, she could stick theoretically optimal electrodes in exactly the right places (or specifically tailored psychedelic drugs) and virtually experience and learn about red before actually seeing it.


You’re assuming the consumer is the one producing batches.


Beautiful!

Would you ever consider building/porting this to nostr?

https://nostr.com/


Can you just add a random query param value to bust the cache?


Exactly. There’s a running joke when talking about code style of “Rich Hickey’s Java” - as the exemplar of weird style. (Which it is if you ever glance at core Clojure’s code base.) But RH in my mind is the epitome of one who understands real practitioner productivity.


The best code style = the one written by someone who doesn't crash prod, segfault, or mess up the hot path (allocate).


Bad analogy. The flat earth theory isn’t novel.


https://www.chronos-desk.com/

Personal tasks with estimates and focused on “local first”/desktop usage.


To Webmaster: How much $$ to jump first in line?


The website should host an auction!


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: