design-reviews VS CAM6

> The other value of pretty specifically addresses preventing orphans and can be more broadly applied. The algorithm behind pretty will evaluate the last four lines in a text block to work out adjustments as needed to ensure the last line has two or more words.

This is very, very badly wrong. `text-wrap-style: pretty` is explicitly not about orphans and does not have a defined algorithm. It’s about prettiness, a subjective thing that will have different interpretations in different browsers and over time, and this is extremely deliberate. What the author has described is what Chromium has implemented at this time.

All the spec says is <https://www.w3.org/TR/css-text-4/#valdef-text-wrap-style-pre...>, that `text-wrap-style: pretty` “Specifies the UA should bias for better layout over speed, and is expected to consider multiple lines, when making break decisions. Otherwise equivalent to auto”.

TAG review of the feature requested that implementers use at least two heuristics, “to avoid authors using it as a proxy for a more specific thing” <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/864#issuecom...>.

For total clarity: ‘pretty’ is not necessarily any different from ‘auto’, and ‘auto’ is permitted to do exactly the same thing as ‘pretty’ does, and I hope and expect that browser makers will eventually go that direction for most contexts (contenteditable/ being the main exception, and maybe lower-powered platforms). If you explicitly want a greedy/first-fit technique, use `text-wrap: stable`. Firefox has had a bug open for 13 years where shifting in this direction and using Knuth–Plass almost everywhere has been seriously contemplated <<a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=630181" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=630181</a>>, long before text-wrap-style.

CSS specs are explicitly not interested in prescribing TeX-level control; text-wrap-style is a good example of this: it’s just hints, with the actual algorithms completely UA-defined. And in fact, they’re going out of their way to recommend including multiple distinct heuristics of prettiness, so that developers don’t use it as a proxy for just one thing and start relying on something that is explicitly and deliberately undefined. <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/864#issuecom...> (And Chromium has done just this: <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=143279...>.)

In other words: you’ve already lost!

Since people seemed to believing Google PR at face value here is the w3c position in rejecting the proposal:

The intention of the Topics API is to enable high level interests of web users to be shared with third parties in a privacy-preserving way in order to enable targeted advertising, while also protecting users from unwanted tracking and profiling. The TAG's initial view is that this API does not achieve these goals as specified.

The Topics API as proposed puts the browser in a position of sharing information about the user, derived from their browsing history, with any site that can call the API. This is done in such a way that the user has no fine-grained control over what is revealed, and in what context, or to which parties. It also seems likely that a user would struggle to understand what is even happening; data is gathered and sent behind the scenes, quite opaquely. This goes against the principle of enhancing the user's control, and we believe is not appropriate behaviour for any software purporting to be an agent of a web user.

The responses to the proposal from Webkit and Mozilla highlight the tradeoffs between serving a diverse global population, and adequately protecting the identities of individuals in a given population. Shortcomings on neither side of these tradeoffs are acceptable for web platform technologies.

It's also clear from the positions shared by Mozilla and Webkit that there is a lack of multi-stakeholder support. We remain concerned about fragmentation of the user experience if the Topics API is implemented in a limited number of browsers, and sites that wish to use it prevent access to users of browsers without it (a different scenario from the user having disabled it in settings).

We are particularly concerned by the opportunities for sites to use additional data gathered over time by the Topics API in conjunction with other data gathered about a site visitor, either via other APIs, via out of band means, and/or via existing tracking technologies in place at the same time, such as fingerprinting.

We appreciate the in-depth privacy analyses of the API that have been done so far by Google and by Mozilla. If work on this API is to proceed, it would benefit from further analysis by one or more independant (non-browser engine or adtech) parties.

Further, if the API were both effective and privacy-preserving, it could nonetheless be used to customise content in a discriminatory manner, using stereotypes, inferences or assumptions based on the topics revealed (eg. a topic could be used - accurately or not - to infer a protected characteristic, which is thereby used in selecting an advert to show). Relatedly, there is no binary assessment that can be made over whether a topic is "sensitive" or not. This can vary depending on context, the circumstances of the person it relates to, as well as change over time for the same person.

Giving the web user access to browser settings to configure which topics can be observed and sent, and from/to which parties, would be a necessary addition to an API such as this, and go some way towards restoring agency of the user, but is by no means sufficient. People can become vulnerable in ways they do not expect, and without notice. People cannot be expected to have a full understanding of every possible topic in the taxonomy as it relates to their personal circumstances, nor of the immediate or knock-on effects of sharing this data with sites and advertisers, and nor can they be expected to continually revise their browser settings as their personal or global circumstances change.

A portion of topics returned by the API are proposed to be randomised, in part to enable plausible deniability of the results. The usefulness of this mitigation may be limited in practice; an individual who wants to explain away an inappropriate ad served on a shared computer cannot be expected to understand the low level workings of a specific browser API in a contentious, dangerous or embarrassing situation (assuming a general cultural awareness of the idea of targeted ads being served based on your online activities or even being "listened to" by your devices, which does not exist everywhere, but is certainly pervasive in some places/communities).

While we appreciate the efforts that have gone into this proposal aiming to iteratively improve the privacy-preserving possibilities of targeted advertising, ultimately it falls short. In summary, the proposed API appears to maintain the status quo of inappropriate surveillence on the web, and we do not want to see it proceed further.

https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726#issuecom...

Ah, I didn't realize this wasn't solved -- a quick search turns up:

- https://github.com/WICG/webcomponents/issues/788

- https://github.com/w3c/DOM-Parsing/issues/58

- https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/494

- https://web.dev/declarative-shadow-dom

In pre-render they seem to have started in this direction extremely recently:

https://github.com/prerender/prerender/pull/731/files

I don't use prerender so I can't definitively speak to it being solved and hiccup-free, but I think that limitation is going to go away in the future.

There was a ton of work across browser vendors to make this a part of spec:

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/canvas.html#the-canva...

It's all there. It's all official. That github page was just one part of reaching consensus. There's also TAG review:

https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/627

FWIW Mozilla and Safari signed off on all of these changes at some point in time somewhere, hence why it's allowed to be part of spec. There were some changes that were not allowed to be part of the new API because one of those two said no (like perspective transforms, conic curves).

I would like to quote from the W3C TAG comments on the Managed Device Web API:

https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/606#issuecom...

> > "NOTE: [RFC7258] treats pervasive monitoring as an attack, but it doesn’t apply to managed devices."

> We don't think this is adequate. Given the power dynamics at play in an employer-employee relationship, the UA should still be working in the best interests of the end-user (the employee) even if the device being used is managed by an administrator. That is to say, pervasive monitoring is never a feature.

Chrome may not consider it part of the "web-exposed platform", since the code doesn't live in blink/, but the same logic applies to view-source. The needs of the users are more important than the security theatre you wish to put on for their teacher's benefit.

One case directly related to Chrome browser, and sending data to Google, there is issue with tracking headers. [source](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/467#issuecomment-581944600)This allows tracking specific Chrome instance among all Google services.We cannot say whether this is used for tracking, but it allows it for sure.\[Register article about the same matter.\]([https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2020/02/05/google\_chrome\_id\_numbers/](https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2020/02/05/google_chrome_id_numbers/))

Github Repo: https://github.com/SimHacker/CAM6/

https://www.youtube.com

I hate it when a program I wrote mocks me. In Lex Fridman's interview of Steven Wolfram, he demonstrates the machine learning functions in Mathematica by taking a photo of himself, which identifies him as a .... (I won't give it away):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez773teNFYA&t=2h20m05s

Here's a video I recently recorded of the CAM-6 simulator I implemented decades ago, and rewrote in JavaScript a few years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyLMHxRNuck

I recorded that demo to show to Norman Margolus, who co-wrote the book and wrote the CAM6 PC Forth code and many rules, so it's pretty long and technical and starts out showing lots of code, but I'm sure you'll totally get and appreciate it. I linked to a pdf copy of the book in the comments, as well as the source code and playable app.

Demo of Don Hopkins' CAM6 Cellular Automata Machine simulator.

Live App: https://donhopkins.com/home/CAM6

Github Repo: https://github.com/SimHacker/CAM6/

Javacript Source Code: https://github.com/SimHacker/CAM6/blob/master/javascript/CAM...

PDF of CAM6 Book: https://donhopkins.com/home/cam-book.pdf

Comments from the code:

    // This code originally started life as a CAM6 simulator written in C

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22738268

DonHopkins on March 31, 2020 | parent | context | favorite | on: Von Neumann Universal Constructor

Here's some stuff about that I posted in an earlier discussion, and transcribed from his book, "Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata".

His concept of self-reproducing mutating probabilistic quantum mechanical machine evolution is quite fascinating and terrifying at the same time (or outside of time), potentially much more powerful and dangerous than mere physical nanotechnology "gray goo" and universe-infesting self replicating von Neumann probes:

Can Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style? (1977) [pdf] (thocp.net)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21855249

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21858465

John von Neuman's 29 state cellular automata machine is (ironically) a classical decidedly "non von Neumann architecture".

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

He wrote the book on "Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata":

https://archive.org/details/theoryofselfrepr00vonn_0

He designed a 29 state cellular automata architecture to implement a universal constructor that could reproduce itself (which he worked out on paper, amazingly):

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

He actually philosophized about three different kinds of universal constructors at different levels of reality:

First, the purely deterministic and relatively harmless mathematical kind referenced above, an idealized abstract 29 state cellular automata, which could reproduce itself with a Universal Constructor, but was quite brittle, synchronous, and intolerant of errors. These have been digitally implemented in the real world on modern computing machinery, and they make great virtual pets, kind of like digital tribbles, but not as cute and fuzzy.

https://github.com/SimHacker/CAM6/blob/master/javascript/CAM...

Second, the physical mechanical and potentially dangerous kind, which is robust and error tolerant enough to work in the real world (given enough resources), and is now a popular theme in sci-fi: the self reproducing robot swarms called "Von Neumann Probes" on the astronomical scale, or "Gray Goo" on the nanotech scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft#Vo...

https://grey-goo.fandom.com/wiki/Von_Neumann_probe

>The von Neumann probe, nicknamed the Goo, was a self-replicating nanomass capable of traversing through keyholes, which are wormholes in space. The probe was named after Hungarian-American scientist John von Neumann, who popularized the idea of self-replicating machines.

Third, the probabilistic quantum mechanical kind, which could mutate and model evolutionary processes, and rip holes in the space-time continuum, which he unfortunately (or fortunately, the the sake of humanity) didn't have time to fully explore before his tragic death.

p. 99 of "Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata":

>Von Neumann had been interested in the applications of probability theory throughout his career; his work on the foundations of quantum mechanics and his theory of games are examples. When he became interested in automata, it was natural for him to apply probability theory here also. The Third Lecture of Part I of the present work is devoted to this subject. His "Probabilistic Logics and the Synthesis of Reliable Organisms from Unreliable Components" is the first work on probabilistic automata, that is, automata in which the transitions between states are probabilistic rather than deterministic. Whenever he discussed self-reproduction, he mentioned mutations, which are random changes of elements (cf. p. 86 above and Sec. 1.7.4.2 below). In Section 1.1.2.1 above and Section 1.8 below he posed the problems of modeling evolutionary processes in the framework of automata theory, of quantizing natural selection, and of explaining how highly efficient, complex, powerful automata can evolve from inefficient, simple, weak automata. A complete solution to these problems would give us a probabilistic model of self-reproduction and evolution. [9]

[9] For some related work, see J. H. Holland, "Outline for a Logical Theory of Adaptive Systems", and "Concerning Efficient Adaptive Systems".

https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/association-for-computing-machin...

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/5578...

https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/10841

Ericson2314 3 months ago [-]

> Although I refer to conventional languages as "von Neumann languages" to take note of their origin and style, I do not, of course, blame the great mathematician for their complexity. In fact, some might say that I bear some responsibility for that problem.

From the paper. Whew.

Typically a cellular automata simulation will have some edge condition like wrapping or mirroring an adjacent cell.

A nice optimization trick is to make the cell buffers 2 cells wider and taller (or two times whatever the neighborhood radius is), and then before each generation you update the "gutter" by copying just the wrapped (or mirrored) pixels. Then your run the rule on the inset rectangle, and the code (in the inner loop) doesn't have to do bounds checking, and can assume there's a valid cell to read in all directions. That saves a hell of a lot of tests and branches in the inner loop.

Also, the Margolus neighborhood can be defined in terms of the Moore neighborhood + vertical phase (even/odd row) + horizontal phase (even/odd column) + time phase (even/odd time). Then you can tell if you're at an even or odd step, and which of the four squares of the grid you're in, to know what to do.

That's how the CAM6 worked in hardware: it used the x/y/time phases as additional bits of the index table lookup.

https://github.com/SimHacker/CAM6/blob/master/javascript/CAM...

Here's how my CAM6 emulator computes the Margolus lookup table index, based on the 9 Moore neighbors + phaseTime, phaseX, and phaseY:

                    function getTableIndexUnrotated(

Oh, nicely done! Trying to code up cellular automata simulations are pretty much guaranteed to push my brains through my nostrils - I've never progressed far beyond classic Conway. Your CAM6 library[1] may be about to steal my weekend from me!

[1] - https://github.com/SimHacker/CAM6