Gudahtt

I think I understand the case you're making - that generic solutions are generally preferable to special-case solutions. That's a sensible enough position to take.

But it's pretty unreasonable to call it _bad design_ in a vacuum, as if there are no obstacles to a more generic design. The reason something like do-notation wasn't chosen is that nobody figured out a way to implement it without major trade-offs. So the alternative you're championing here either isn't possible within the constraints of the language, or the solution hasn't been discovered yet. The `?` operator was a pragmatic compromise.

I'm with you 100% that it is a shortcoming, but you can't really call it bad design given the reality of the situation. Compromises aren't bad design.

Yes, this is what passed.

The "5 million unique monthly visitors" point is concerning too, because that term is not clearly defined.

That description includes any for-profit services that involve user-generated content. That doesn't make me any less concerned.

Also that link appears to be dead, so I'm not sure what comment you're referring to.

Not all for-profit websites are run by big corporations. The companies you're describing here are also the ones that will find it easiest to comply with these new regulations. YouTube for example was already pressured to create a filtering system, ContentID. Behemoths like Facebook will have a far easier time adapting than your typical startup.

Article 13 dooms smaller companies and startups, thus further entrenching these big corporations. There was a provision added to Article 13 to protect "small and medium-sized enterprises", but according to the EFF [0] this "protection" is fatally flawed. It only protects them for 3 years, or until they attain 5 million unique visitors, or until they attain annual revenues (not profits) of €10 million.

That's not to mention that the exceptions for not-for-profit services also has been regarded as vague, which could be problematic.

[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/european-copyright-dir...

This update includes everything in V8 v7.3 as well: https://v8.dev/blog/v8-release-73

It looks like you're still using Neo4j 2.3. Have you tried using newer versions of Neo4j? There have been some pretty substantial performance improvements.

Additionally, Neo4j does support clustering with their Enterprise edition. It also has much better tooling (better metrics/logging, backups, etc.). It is AGPL licensed, so there's no reason not to use it really.

Yes, the Community Edition and the Enterprise Edition are different. Certain functionality is restricted to the Enterprise Edition. It's a different codebase. I didn't say otherwise.

You can see it here: http://github.com/neo4j/neo4j

See how there are 'community' and 'enterprise' top-level directories? The 'enterprise' directory contains the enterprise-specific code. It's a separate project in some senses but it does share the same repository, and it is open source.

As you can also see by looking at that repository, the Enterprise Edition is licensed as AGPL. Here is the license: https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/blob/3.3/enterprise/LICENSE.t...

I'll quote:

    If you have not executed a Commercial Agreement with Neo Technology, the
    Software is subject to the terms of the GNU AFFERO 
    GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
    Version 3, as follows:

Then follows the AGPL license.

Yes, that is the case.

It is AGPL; it's dual licensed. You can use it freely under the terms of AGPL, or you can enter into a commercial agreement with Neo Technology and use it without the restrictions imposed by the AGPL.

Here's the license: https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/blob/3.3/enterprise/LICENSE.t...

Oh? Neo4j is free. The Community edition is GPLv3, and the Enterprise edition is AGPLv3.

To address the other points you raised; I personally found Babel 6 easier to use and understand than Babel 5. I suspect this is because I needed to configure Babel 5 anyway to meet my needs, so I was required to understand the configuration either way. Babel 6 made it much easier to understand what I was asking Babel to do; no magic, everything explicit.

With version 5, the default settings were a moving target (which I found confusing), and explicitly configuring it was more complex. Apparently the Babel team had great difficultly deciding what should be included by default as well.

Basically anybody that used Babel for something other than "6to5" had to jump through hoops to overwrite the defaults. Seeing as how the Babel team were trying to position it as a general purpose Javascript compiler, that was a problem for them.

So, maybe it's worse off for most people because of the change (because it doesn't work with zero configuration anymore), but plenty of people were better off because of it. The library became easier to maintain, and easier to use for a non-negligible number of users.

No arguments about the poor documentation on how to migrate; that's fair.

But we're straying from the point I was trying to make; your feedback was overly negative and hyperbolic.

We're all guilty of doing this at times, but it's not a constructive activity to engage in. I don't fault you personally for making one overly negative comment, but en masse it's harmful for the community.

>However, I am one of those people who think that Babel6 is terrible, that it "broke the web", and it marked the beginning of the entire JavaScript fatigue era.

Granted, I wouldn't consider this a personal attack. But it definitely qualifies as negative and nonconstructive.

I literally can't imagine how one could argue that they "broke the web"; that's completely ridiculous. If the migration path wasn't explained very well, why not say that? Or if you find configuring the tool confusing, and would prefer it to have "sane defaults" in the absence of configuration, why not say that? Instead of calling it terrible and blaming it for the "javascript fatigue era".

They realized that what had once been "sane defaults" were no longer sane, so they removed them. That's it. I can accept that there were legitimate complaints to be made, but the hyperbole and general negativity was over the top on this one.

The rule changes made... around 2 years ago now I think? Kinda made this complaint obsolete.

They changed it to allow your ratio to dip well below the "required" ratio as long as you kept seeding. Keeping your ratio up wasn't strictly necessary anymore - though it was still required to keep your "rank" and the little perks that came with that. The admins did this largely in response to their inability to "fix" the ratio economy that overly disadvantaged people with low bandwidth.

It's disingenuous to attribute that act to Buddhism; that was a political act.