You can have button actions today by wrapping the button in a form tag. The article even shows this. The implication seems to be somehow that this is no good because what if you're already in a form tag? The answer is to move the two actions which aren't actually related to the form outside of the form tag and give them their own unique form parents.
I had the same thought at first, but the example in the article convinced me. It's something I ran into when I did webdev.
Form tags usually contain other elements - textboxes, checkboxes, etc. The url and method are specified on the form tag and not the button, so if you want a second submit button that goes to a different URL or use a different method, you need to duplicate all the other inputs in a separate form tag with your button.
All of this can be done with scripting, but the point of this proposal is to make that unnecessary.
I guess the distinction would be that in the formaction/formmethod case you'll also submit all the other form data, while the button action will just be an empty body.
An extra blank form on the page and the form attribute on the button can work around that, and at that point the argument would basically be: this is super clunky.
you can have the backend at the first URL detect which action should be taken based on which button was pressed, and act accordingly—even up to passing control off entirely to a different route/method.
What if I want the cancel button to be to the left of the submit button? This is how GitHub lays out those buttons, for instance. There's fundamentally no reason why a button's functionality should be dictated by its position on the page.
The proposal has an in-depth explanation of why this and other workarounds (like using the `form` attribute and a bunch of dangling forms) aren't sufficient.[0]
Restriction is a widely used technique in both art, and life. Consider black and white paintings, or generally paintings which only use shades of a single color? Why are they not using all the colors when they exist?
What about people who do challenging athletic endeavors with limitations? The ice guy climbed up to the base camp of Everest in just his shorts and slippers. Why not wear more?
What about minimalism as a way of life? Why not buy more if you have money?
You didn't take the time to review all the dimensions of the project then. It is never always worst on all dimensions, if at least includes the 'I made (part of) this myself' dimension. Even if it is objectively worst on everything else, e.g performance, price, popularity, etc then the person either learned something or at least had fun, and that's in itself valuable, to them, even though not to you nor necessarily anyone else.
When John Darnielle from The Mountain Goats started recording albums to cassette on his portable Panasonic stereo, he got a sound that was so much more lo-fi than what could be obtained in a studio, or even with a more expensive recorder and microphone.
His genius was to realise he'd made a sound that most professional musicians would never bother with, and thus it became his own and his signature. I think not worrying so much about fidelity probably gave him more time to concentrate on the lyrics and music.
Most people carry one of history's most technologically-advanced cameras. How many can say they actually use it for something interesting?
> Most people carry one of history's most technologically-advanced cameras. How many can say they actually use it for something interesting?
Figuring out how to use a phone camera in creative practice is really an interesting challenge.
Photographers still don't even pay attention to their ancillary uses, to be honest; you can use them to collect materials and build photography plans. But they can also teach you a lot of stuff (particularly subject isolation and wide angle visualisation)
One positive aspect of a camera like this is that it forces you to slow down. Because you can’t take 10 frames per second hoping to get some keepers, you become more intentional when shooting. I took a photography class where we were asked to cover the LCDs with cardboard, so that you couldn’t get an immediate feedback and slow down a bit. Another trick is to format memory cards so that they can only store a few exposures. Going slow sometimes is a good thing.
I thought I remembered that the first Leica digital cameras (very expensive) didn't have a screen at all. "Chimping" or checking the shot immediately after taking it was seen as some sort of crutch that "real" photographers didn't need.
But it looks like the Leicas always had a screen, so maybe I'm thinking of another brand.
It's art. Sometimes, ease of use and perfection aren't the goals at all.
It's easy to take quickly take a series of as many very realistic photos as a person wants with a wide variety of digital cameras, including the ones were all have in our pocket supercomputers. We dial in the settings (if we want to), and then push the button to get instant results.
I can take twenty photos of a thing and instantly review them all as they happen. One of them is probably going to work for me; if not, I can keep shooting. And then, if I want to edit it later, I can do that: There's countless ways to mess around with photos in post-production. These are optimizations we can make that utilize aspects of the system's capabilities.
And that's a valid way to do things, but just because we have identified one valid way to (hopefully!) get one good photograph with one category of hardware doesn't mean that we've exhausted the possibilities.
This way is different. Push button, and get imperfect results eventually -- even the viewfinder itself is very late to the game. This adds friction to the system. Since the time-cost of reviewing each photo is significant instead of instant, this shifts the optimization path. I get to think about things like framing and composition without even being able to see the frame or the composition. I won't get to see the results until later. This might motivate me to work harder to get it right beforehand, while using my brain in interesting ways to predict what the result might be without instant feedback.
That's OK. There's no rules in art; it's fine for people to choose their own methods. And to be sure: There's no accounting for taste. Just because one method implies more work doesn't mean that it will get better results, or that others will find anything of merit with any of it at all.
Sometimes, the mere process of doing is art in and of itself. That's OK, too.
In terms of modernity: If I want a particular scene of a particular place, I don't have to take it myself. I don't have to get out of my chair to hire someone to do it for me, or I can just Google one up. And here in 2026: I can have the bot make something up that suits me.
We can elect to get that chair using laborious old methods from a particular time period (pre-lathe or post-lathe? do we get to use a block plane? maybe we're just using stone-age flint tools, instead?), or with new methods and electric machines, or by handing over money at IKEA.
These are all valid methods by which to get a thing to sit on and then talk shit about art.
You don’t deserve the downvotes for what is a wholly reasonable and not unusual question.
Art really demands constraints, simplicity is clarifying, ephemerality is provocative, and designing your own creative tools invites metacognition. Doing all of this with a highly capable computing device is fascinating, IMO: it’s hypothetical, alternative future stuff. This device is an art experiment, isn’t it?
I have a (still modestly expensive) full frame digital camera that I bought specifically for the purpose of using alternative lens techniques: a home-made tilt shift bellows, wide angle pinhole, vintage lenses, enlarger lenses, and my own simple adaptations of binocular eyepieces and simple achromats, which have an “early photography” vibe, not least because to design them I ended up reading about Daguerre, Chevalier and Wollaston. They have changed my perspective on photography.
There is IMO very little in the way of artistic inspiration to be found at the cutting edge unless you are going to at least partly subvert cutting edge tools to do things they weren’t designed for. So it follows that creative technology is likely to be something of a dialogue with transformation and limitation.
It seems to be playing on Nostalgia, judging by these paragraphs like this one:
>The dithered photos look somewhere between a newspaper halftone and an old video game. The processing is part of the fun: you watch the colors come in one by one, like a digital polaroid.
Frankly, it does seem like a very fun gimmick, but also highly impractical. But my adoration of this little thing might just come from a general longing of the low-tech, simple devices of the past.
There is a good amount of articles of how we worked towards one device for everything, and more are rediscovering single use devices.
One use case is it helps kids understand how things work, including using dvds, etc.
A low fidelity photo allows the imagination to fill in the picture. Insistent kids can relate to lower fidelity as their own writing and drawing evolves.
Probably both. We were already hitting limits in terms of finding software that could generate returns; without public funding or enormous regulation the possibility of finding new jobs with a degree is lower than it's been in a while.
In academia they are paid to produce papers (and get some chores done like teaching), hopefully ones that can result in bombastic press releases, or winning awards.
On a more abstract level they are paid to bring funding and prestige to the university, but that often goes through the route of papers. And papers often involve proving theorems.
I consider "get paid to do X" to be equivalent to "you get to have your paid job and career as long as you do X". In that case research and papers qualify. Whatever is technically written in the contracts is just surface level bureaucracy. Publish or perish.
> I consider "get paid to do X" to be equivalent to "you get to have your paid job and career as long as you do X". In that case research and papers qualify.
Actually, it doesn't. Both math departments I'm familiar with had faculty members who published only to get tenure, and never published again until they retired.
But if they didn't teach (or taught extremely poorly), they got fired, even though they had tenure. If you didn't show up to a scheduled class a number of times, you got in trouble.
I know you weren't saying this, but it's frustrating reading so many comments about mathematicians "getting paid to have fun and good riddance". No - the majority of what they do is teach non-math students. If people here don't like that, by all means dissolve the departments and have the engineering departments teach math.
If the main job is teaching, then AI being good at proving theorems should not make OP worry about his job. Only AI being good at teaching would threaten that.
Not a mathematician, but I suppose there is pressure to publish like everywhere else in academia. And a publication generally requires a new contribution.
> According to official documents and accounts provided by the girl’s parents, the hospital had allowed Qiu’s experimental treatment to proceed under a regulatory provision that does not require approval from national regulators. After the child’s death, the hospital paid a modest fine to a local health authority but Qiu was not publicly sanctioned.
That's not in the headline, but is an important part of the story. Also from the article:
> Seven experts in fields including genetics, virology, and bioethics who reviewed details of the Nature study and the clinical trial for Science and Retraction Watch expressed concern that Qiu and his team downplayed the trial’s risks in describing them to the parents, overlooked safety signals in animal studies, and proceeded even though success was unlikely.
Also not in the headline, but also an important part of the story. Finally:
> The girl’s parents, who requested that Science use pseudonyms for them and their daughter for privacy reasons, have decided to tell her story now because they are angry about what they feel is a lack of accountability by the researchers and the institutions. “Learning the reality of these missing safeguards has fundamentally changed how we now view the entire project,” says the father, a software engineer. He asked that he be called Jason, his wife Linda, and their daughter Mei (Chinese for “beautiful”). “We did not realize how unusual and dangerous many of the arrangements were.”
Also not in the headline, also an important part of the story.
Not to mention the part where it appears that the entire department decided to try and scam these parents.
> Jeremy Sugarman, a medical doctor and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University, says it’s not unusual for a family to bear the costs of developing a personalized treatment. But, according to text messages shared by Jason and Linda, Qiu also asked the couple to pay other members of the research team directly, through informal arrangements they found increasingly troubling.
Qiu kept on adding on new back channel payments and seemed to keep ballooning the costs. I have to wonder if the procedure started because it was ready or because the parents ran out of resources.
This is pretty silly. If you're paying $860k for something (note this is USD being spent within China), you can afford to do basic research on what you're getting involved with, which they apparently did:
> The parents had heard about serious side effects, including deaths, caused by other gene therapies, and knew the greatest risk would be Mei’s immune response to the massive dose of virus.
The risk was explicitly stated in the consent form:
> The platelets in her blood also dropped to dangerous levels. It was the exact sequence of symptoms that the consent form had warned the family about.
Qiu should have been more cautious in some of their communication with the obviously emotional parents, but this is pretty far from a scam and these aren't nobody doctors within China. He had a postdoc from UC San Diego, was a well known neuroscientist in China, published in Nature, etc.
There is a meaningful difference between knowing that gene therapy can cause serious complications in general and being told that every treated monkey developed moderate to severe liver damage, with one also showing kidney damage consistent with the mechanism that ultimately killed the child. Informed consent was pretty hard to get here
The main issue is the hospital ethics committee signed off on a private clinical trial based on early positive results, but before the final toxicology report was finished... the whole program in China is about commercially funded research (meaning it didn't go under the usual Chinese FDA-type review which is more thorough). This family was privately paying for studies on mice and giving the doctor hundreds of thousands of dollars to explore this avenue. It also says he did share the toxicology report with family beforehand and they still went ahead with it anyway. This is the report showing a monkey died of liver failure, the same thing that ended up killing their daughter.
I believe it was a very dumb idea to use their kid in something very experimental, especially in China. But lets not pretend the family didn't play a huge role, with many chances to have it double checked with other scientists before putting their daughters life at risk. They 100% had the means to do so but chose to gamble.
I was curious what non-fatal condition would make the parents so desperate (to participate in a first-in-human trial):
> Mei was diagnosed with global developmental delay .. some of Mei’s behaviors .. were associated with autism.
> CHD3 mutations produce a condition called Snijders Blok-Campeau syndrome
> people with the mutation often have a normal life expectancy, but their symptoms vary widely. Most have slightly larger than normal heads, and about two-thirds have intellectual deficits. Moderate to severe cases may be nonverbal, suffer from seizures and heart problems, and have fluid-filled voids in their heads.
There is at this time no reason to believe that. We know an AI cannot own copyright in the US. We don't know that the author doesn't own it. And if they don't we don't know how much of their own manual effort on the output would make them own it.
If a photographer can own a point and click snap of a painting then I expect we'll land somewhere where LLM outputs are or can become owned by the tool weilder with at most some minimum effort.
reply