I just wish these big parties would give you a more formal way to make clear you're not a spammer.
1,493 karma · joined December 9, 2020
I just wish these big parties would give you a more formal way to make clear you're not a spammer.
The problem lies with the big e-mail providers marking your e-mail as spam, even if you have everything configured right (MX, SPF, DKIM, DMARC, etc.) and you're not on any blacklists. They use their mysterious opaque algo to determine that your e-mail is spam and you have no idea what you could do to not get in peoples junk boxes.
The only thing that jumped out to me is a lack of a panic button that stops all sound.
I think tracking calories for a couple of weeks can be very enlightening for a lot of people, granted you don't have a personality type where this can get you into trouble. But for the long haul it's not really useful or even feasible, you're better off getting to know what sort of way of eating suits you best and how to correct if you're getting off course. Anyone can stick to a very strict regime for three months, but the trick is to stick to a proper diet you can enjoy for three decades and then three decades more.
https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/2-sentenced-to-prison-for-...
And with the subsequent deaths of all the remaining cats, as they are all sadly deceased, I saw similar things happen.
We should not anthropomorphise animals, but that doesn't mean they don't have complex feelings or thoughts. If we find that even bees can "play", it's not that weird if cats can "grieve".
This is just one example. I get increasingly frustrated by how shit everything is and my way of dealing with it is to disengage. It is rather sad, but I was not put on this earth to wrangle apps, QR codes, verification codes, passwords, usernames, e-mails, TOTP codes, updates, activation codes, etc.
But the side-effects of sugar alcohols are pretty well known (especially to anyone who has had the pleasure of eating beyond their threshold). I haven't searched for any papers but I'm sure you'll find plenty that conclude that many people have adverse reactions to sugar alcohols.
Of course I'm open to the possibility that I'm Doing It Wrong™.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but whenever something is presented as some messianistic "way forward" I just think "ah yes, another way forward" but feel we're mostly moving laterally.
I truly wonder, do people use this stuff for software that is expected to be maintained for 5-10 years? I feel that with the speed at which everything changes, gets deprecated, discontinued, succeeded, etc. you'll spend a good chunk of your time staying up to date with the current js ecosystem. That doesn't seem very economic to me.
Also I don't see how using a loop or conditional in PHP is any different from using one in a templating engine, aside from the overhead of the engine and added annoyance of debugging another language in your project.
Improper use of templating engines or trying to use templating engines that aren't up to the task can give you headaches just as well. Sadly no amount of frameworks or templating engines can stop a bad programmer from writing bad code, in the end we're craftsmen who need to learn how to use our tools.
2. This could be a valid use case, but a rather rare one. XML+XSLT is something that sounds fantastic on paper, but as anyone who actually worked with it knows it ranges from a big disappointment to an absolute nightmare.
It works great, it's fast and you don't have to learn a new templating language or dialect every 2-3 years. Or try to figure out how to do trivial things like loops in loops.
I don't quite get the use of templating engines in PHP because PHP is a templating engine itself.
I do miss web pages that weren't +10MB that load hundreds of JS and CSS files that clog up your computer and may or may not contain malware. I hate that having uMatrix and uBlock Origin installed is pretty much a requirement to use the web nowadays.
Layne Norton did a quick video explaining the shortcomings of the study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad8_scQtHFM
The problem with studies like this is the reporting on them. I'm fairly sure most people reporting on this study did not actually read it (and you can't read it without paying). And it just plays into the confirmation bias that any non-nutritive sweetener is bad, despite them all being wildly different chemical compounds that all get metabolised in very different ways.