etherealG

Any chance you or them know of a similar service in France? I've just discovered Pact in the UK and am about to move :(

i can confirm that intents are this deeply integrated in android. more so because they are custom, any app can fire or register an intent, so they don't need to be something baked into the OS from the start.

i do like the ideas for extensions apple presented, but they all seem to specific. the android intents i use day to day are way past this.

congrats on launching! hope it goes well for you.

small suggestion: try to add some screenshots to the play store that give a better idea of what the game is. at the moment i paged through all of them and i'm still unsure of what kind of game it is.

I think the core idea here is beyond the javascript it's implemented in. I've never seen a debugger that can do this kind of async debugging before anywhere.

Don't you think it's more novel than being some trick only relevant to front end web development work?

This is the reason the grandparent post was downvoted. Assumption that cause something seems unlikely is usually a bad idea in security.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions about this bug, seems anyone with decent effort can break keys.

where did you find this info?

paper isn't in the public domain :(

anyone know if the techniques here are new? all existing techniques are prohibitive without a lot of time and cycling wifi keys fixes that as far as i'm aware.

nice to see someone trying to fix contenteditable as an api, thanks for the hard work and sharing it!

spot on. his way of putting it that simplicity is objective and ease subjective really nails it. most people say simple and mean easy.

mind explaining what hg push/pull do to a git only user?

perhaps it's that i'm just only used to git's definitions of the words, but they seem symmetrical to me in the sense that they both try to synchronise history, either upwards or downwards.

i can't really imagine what a pull would do differently than a merge or rebase that would satisfy the idea of synchronisation but be more symmetrical as you describe. i'd really appreciate an elaboration.

Any chance you could outline the downside of subtree? I've always thought it was better in every way.

Thanks for the hard work on this. It's a problem I find particularly bad in my day to day use of chat on various clients across a phone, tablet and laptop.

That's the crux of good tests. That they test the unchanging interface between parts of code, without enforcing no change in implementation.

Interestingly it's also the crux of good design. Breaking code up into composeable pieces that aren't braided together.

and it's back

creepy, but awesome

I think the suggestions of using a lib to get higher level stuff are good ones. For simple enough stuff, d3, or more complex whole game engines are available.

sounds like they should be!

I was under the impression that the difficulty in switching providers was the crux of antitrust law. Surely if it's as easy as typing a different search provider (or shopping one like amazon) into an address bar, how can this be anticompetitive?

hi, any chance this was recorded? i'd love to take a look.

sorry but i disagree. the in video questions, the randomised problem sets, all the coursera stuff really helped me to learn the ideas.

i'd suggest following prof ng's free online course instead, just finished it a few weeks ago and it's really good!

https://class.coursera.org/ml-004/

thanks very much. am i right in that the main reason for this is that forking is undesired? how is that helpful to an open system?

are you serious?! copyright instead of left on the standards for the "open" web? wtf

I'd suggest that removing a site should be automatic but adding one requires a review by an actual person.

a fair point, i'd argue that it's a bug in stash's behaviour that disallows this. personally i've had experience with stash working ok in this scenario often in the field, so perhaps only certain split files cause the issue. most likely when the divergence of the stash and the commit are in very close proximity in the file.

worth noting here is that stash behaviour has improved a lot in more recent versions, e.g. stash pop can merge with your working tree now, whereas a while back it would just fail to apply and you'd be stuck having to do a patch and apply instead.

i think the workflow i outlined is intended to work correctly and eventually will for all cases rather than just the majority. hopefully that doesn't scare people away.

out of interest do you know of any other way to do a similar kind of thing with any other tool? i find having to deal with these edge cases still way better than the alternative of having no staging area and only being able to work on 1 thing at a time personally.

if you don't trust yourself to make that judgement, try this workflow:

stage, commit, stash

now your working copy does match the state you committed, and you can test away to your hearts content. if you find a problem, fix it, and commit --amend. keep this cycle going till you're done.

stash pop, carry on working

almost every time i see a criticism of git it's about the way you use it not the tool itself.

because some of the essence of what you wanted to express is lost when you compile. it's not a one to one mapping.

otherwise we would just compile and decompile into each form. intermediates like lvm come close to trying to do this i think? not sure if they allow going back to the original form from the IL though.

oh, and lastly, think of trying to express a feature in 1 high level language with another that doesn't support that feature. it's quite hard to gain expression when it's not idiomatic in that language.

kind of similar to spoken language actually. some concepts in some languages form as single words or phrases that never really translate well to other spoken languages because the place that other language formed never had that concept.

the sc2 custom map thing is pretty big these days. they have a whole 'arcade' section of the game designed around customisation, you should try it out :)

i was thinking ownership for a top layer, but that could be true for lower ones too. but i see your point, ownership and management are different things.

all depends how involved each layer is. perhaps the top layer never even speaks to the other 3 more than a yearly meeting.