Gunax

It's the 'I could have done that' vibe. Yes, you might have been physically able to. But you didn't. That you actually did not do it is a pretty good indicator that it is not, in fact, easy.

Always goes up. I know it's cliche to say we cannot afford it anymore (we evidently can afford it, as we are paying for it).

But eventually we really truly will not be able to afford it. 5k to 22k in 23 years means it's going to be around 90k in 2045.

The proper solution is to raise the price of electricity.

That's the comic? It's completely cliche and uninspired.

Sorry to be so blunt--i just don't see the appeal.

Some alternatives are:

Vue3/composition API -- probably the simplest if you're coming from React. Definitely feels like it was inspired by hooks.

Svelte/store -- svelte has a term called 'hook' but it's unrelated. The equivalent would be Svelte's store.

The other frameworks use something called 'Signals' (Preact, Qwik, Solid, Elm and even Angular/backbone though I don't personally have in depth knowledge of all of these).

IMO, I would prefer Svelte if you are adventurous, or Vue if you like React but just want something like 'better React'.

If the taxes are performed to make the economy just or fairer (as opposed to finding public necessities), possibly.

I understand the absurdity of it. We had taxes for a long time before socialism. And we obviously need taxes.

But a long-term criticism of the welfare state has been that it co-opted taxes from being a means to fund public services to a means to reward/rebalance/rework society towards politically favoured groups.

This argument is 75 years old. I take it to be less of an argument, and more like history.

Server side rendering isnt special any more:

https://joshcollinsworth.com/blog/antiquated-react#server-si...

This blog was posted to HN a few weeks ago. The author does a really good job of summarizing React's relationship with the rest of the SPA ecosystem.

Every other framework not only has its own implementation of hooks, but notably: every one of them is faster, smarter, easier to write, or a combination of all three.

I agree that useEffect is bad.

But there are other SPA frameworks that do things better. In fact, just about any other framework does things better.

Anyone mind translating this for a gdb noob?

When I try:

> sudo gdb 678

> 678: No such file or directory.

Docs say maybe the -p flag?

> sudo gdb -p

> Attaching to process 678

> Unable to find Mach task port for process-id 678: (os/kern) failure (0x5).

(Yes, I could probably read and understand docs, but, that takes effort)

It's far too difficult to predict. Growth is exponential. So the difference between a 3.5% growth rate and 4.0% growth is miniscule to the average person, but the latter leads to twice the economy after 50 years.

It's not that I don't trust economists--It's just that they have an impossibly difficult task. Tiny variations in the growth rate make huge differences after decades.

We don't know their reasons.

Ostensibly, they want RTO because it's RTO. The controversial theory is that it's all a ploy to get some portion to quit, a layoff in disguise.

The people who they actually need to keep will not be asked to return.

My disappointment in my education is how much these rules were emphasized over content.

The hard part of writing is content--not syntax.

Just like programming is about logic, and syntax is a minor nitpick one needs to know.

But I think the real reason these rules were emphasized so much is that they are easy to grade and explain.

I certainly sympathize with a more balanced world order.

However, it's difficult to imagine any of these becoming partners soon.

As much as we criticize the hypocrisy of G7, they atleast have a uniting philosophy.

BRICs are united by what they are not. And in fact, many of them are rivals with each other.

Well, that's funny. But I take it to mean that it was intentionally made addictive, rather than just being enjoyable.

By analogy, some people say that food is being made addictive. But I think there is a dubious difference between an addictive hamburger and just a tasty hamburger.

I think it's a thoughtful tale, but I really cannot get behind the premise. Was our attention really stolen? Is this a literal claim, or just hyperbole?

It's a vice of the modern world. We have made food that tastes wo good, you want to eat forever. We have drugs which give you euphoria (for a time).

And, we have entertainment that is far better than before.

Well, for one I don't think there is anything particularly unique about the web. We have had 100 years of electronic entertainment. The sentiment used to be 'TV is rotting our brains'.

:q but always:w

I have skim read a bunch of articles on this, and I still cannot understand what is actually being charged for and what this law mandates.

I am trying to understand whether this charges for copying of news, or just linking to it.

It seems to be implied that the content is being copied. But news is already copyrightable. Why were existing copyright protections not sufficient?

Or does this law actually change for links?

And what about users sharing links? So if I just send a facebook friend a link to a newspaper, does the newspaper receive money for that?

Does Google need to pay for indexing news sites?

No. I was thinking it's the opposite. I have not heard much from Romero recently.

I feel like they are talking past each other, or at least talking about different things.

Hickey seems to be talking about breaking the compiler. That is, he is saying that changing the return signature from null|int to int should not break the compilation. In effect, this would create a warning a la 'You are checking for null, but var x cannot be null'.

The author seems to be talking about breaking changes in the behaviour/operation sense.

Those are different types of breaking.

It seems like the issue then is that int can be nullable. The solution is to make int an int. You cannot assign None to int.

I'm not an expert on programming languages, but asaik this is how typescript operates

It's nice to hear from the other John after all this time.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that speech is irrelevant, therefore freedom of speech is also irrelevant?

Thanks for the response. I am not sure I understand the point about freedom of the press.

You say all corporations should have their words regulated, but you also mention freedom of the press. This seems contradictory.

If the constitution does not apply to corporations, then how does the New York Times have protections from it?

Or more aptly, what about Citizens United? Aren't they part of the press?

And who determines which corporations are part of the press? Does Comcast get an exception (because of MSNBC) but not for Exxon?

Well corporations aren't people, but they are made of people.

The new York times is some sort of corporation, so does it not get free speech? How about ycombinator? How about NPR?

I think NPR's coverage was lacking in subtlety. They barely mention what the case was actually about, which was whether the government had the right to restrict the release of a documentary.

It is difficult for me to consider something as profoundly anti-1A as the government stepping in and saying 'No, you cannot publish that documentary'.

I know there is another side to this. And I hate to be so harsh, but I think the media has done a very poor job of explaining the implications of the issue.

Let's consider for a moment what it would mean for corporations to not have free speech.

First, it would mean that we would need some sort of government department to determine what speech is permitted and which isn't. This might initially seem obvious (political vs non-political), but how could one draw that distinction? Are Michael Moore movies 'political'? How about a movie with strong environmentalist or anti-war themes? It starts to get hazy very quickly. So we will need some legal guidelines specifying what is allowed and what is not, as well as a department to watch and read publications to ensure they follow the guidelines.

Then, we will need to determine which corporations are going to be regulated, and it what ways. It certainly seems evil for an Exxon or Microsoft to start publishing stances that might benefit themselves. So does that mean that we need to regulate the news that comes out of MSNBC (owned by Comcast) or the movies made by Sony pictures? It starts to seem very dystopian.

And what about books? So I can self-publish a book, since that's just me. But if I decide to use a publisher, is the content of my book now regulated? That seems like an arbitrary distinction. If I publish a zine, and it gets popular, maybe I want to hire some employees. Does this mean I cannot incorporate to make my taxes simpler and to separate my personal liabilities from my business liabilities? That seems like an arbitrary distinction based on tax law, and has little bearing on the political function of my zine.

Etc. etc. Hopefully this helpa you understand why this isn't such a straightforward issue.

Whether that decision is in the best interests is a matter of opinion. They did what representative democracy encourages, which is to have a dialogue with their representatives.

Never thought of dependencies as a SAT issue before... Makes sense once I think about it.

I always imagined dependencies as a tree.

If I have dependency x which uses foo 1.0 and dependency y which uses foo 2.0, isn't it possible to get an unsatisfiable rule?

Why do we need a universal version of foo? Cant we just use both foo 1.0 and 2.0? When being used by x, we use foo1.0 and when being used by y, use foo 2.0

Forget about whether spies are buying it for a second. This data is out there.

The real problem I see is that: - The data exists - The people involved may not have consented, or they consented when they agreed to a a EULA without really understanding it.

In general, it's not illegal to record in public. The only thing that's changed is that it's feasible to use facial recognition, license plate readers, etc. Whereas before, it would have technically possible but practically infeasible.

From what I remember: it does not. It's about building a practical computer.

There is probably some degree of aliterative appeal in 'ally to adversary'. But they were viewed as at least neutral in the 90s.

Mitt Romney was also mocked for calling Russia the greatest threat in 2012. I was one of those people. I was wrong.