gr__or

I certainly fetishize it, but not as much as I fetishize good criticism. This is not it though. Please make it substantial.

This argument needs some reason tbh.

To be fair the "result"-part in "something you thought was an Option[T] result turned out to be really a T" makes it sound like you were speaking of the return-type to me as well. I appreciate the elboration though!

Highly subjective and therefor probably not welcome here, but since this was the comment I saw first:

My Top Netflix Shows:

- Better Call Saul

- Bojack Horseman

- Mindhunter

- Fargo

- Maniac

- The End of the Fucking World

- Master of None

- American Vandal

My Top Netflix Movies:

- Beats of No Nation

- Roma

- Annihilation

- Okja

And where I think your list is wrong:

- 13 Reasons Why

Very problematic show[1]. I found Netflix' response to the criticism lacking and season 2 doubles down on the mistake. Even if one can ignore that, I think the writing and characters are still insultingly thin.

- Ozark

Not bad at all. But also not nearly as good as Breaking Bad. If we didn't live in this gilden television age, I might've found it worth my time

- Altered Carbon

Visually very entertaining. But it's definitely pulp.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_Reasons_Why#Social_impact

I'm happy that you kicked the addiction and I think your arguments around the mischaracterization around the behaviour commonly associated with Heroin are spot on (and probably apply to many other drugs as well).

What I'm in disagreement with, is the stance that "as long as one is self-sustainable and does a good job", there's no real problem to it". Now that might not be what you wanted to say, but I think it's a reasonable enough reading of the text.

I have many friends who are addicted to Cannabis, who all have good jobs and do good work. But compared to other friends I feel I can see a certain lack of grander, more personal ambitions. Now I might just be confusing the direction of the correlation here, and Heroin is probably a whole different beast. I guess, I just want to say there's more to life. And some drugs might open certain doors in your mind to deeper meaning, but my (limited) observations lead me to the conclusion that addiction to drugs tends to be more of a door-closer.

You can't expect anyone to believe that without a solid source.

How would you remove them while still being fully compatible with existing JS code? I mean they could do it, it'd just be orthogonal to their goal of TS being easy to bring into existing codebases.

There's also dozen videos of people finishing Dark Souls with a Guitar Hero controller, yet you don't see people using those in the ESL.

Ha, that's exactly how I describe it to people!

And with psychedelics you can traverse the graph upwards, deconstructing all branches you pass on your way.

A major version change of React is different from a major version change in Angular. I upgraded several React apps of variying sizes from 14 to 17 over time and none of these upgrades took more than an hour.

Don't get confused by the version labeling scheme.

I think "foot gun" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/footgun) is more common.

So I have to cheer for coups and the desctruction of the Middle East because I appreciate the Internet & GPS?

That's not consistent, that's lacking nuance. On the spectrum of things the US military does, I see the drone program closer to the former than the latter.

From outside the US (which is where I'm from) the US military doesn't look very benevolent. Do I want my data to be used to help causes I believe to be harmful to human life?

No! It's that simple.

While I love RottenTomatoes for Movies, I find it abysmal for TV Shows. Here are some shows with a >90% score:

- Almost all seasons of Supernatural

- Seasons 3 & 4 of Veep

- Seasons 4, 5 & 7 of New Girl

- Season 2 of The Flash

- Season 2-4 of Arrow

Now I'm not saying that those shows are all shit (tho they are certainly not in my ballpark), but I doubt anyone thinks of them as 100% shows, in the same sense that Moonlight is a 98% movie.

The problem comes with few reviews (which is also a thing with more niche-y movies), which is probably amplified in later seasons, where reviewers who don't like it stopped watching.

I think for a lot of people it'd be an excellent idea to do just that.

Interesting concept, thanks for sharing.

I know most of these are heavy lifts, but any ideas around...

...materialized views?

...built-in versioning (Datomic-like)?

...story on how to play it nice with backend languages (One thing MongoDB imo did right)?

True, that WAS a deficiency, though one that seems to be fixed now.

Given that dependencies are also resolved by name in the Ruby & Python I'd think there's no technical reason for why a similar thing wouldn't happen, is there?

That it plagues NPM more than others might be due to size, NPM has almost 3x as many packages as the next large module repository (Maven) [1].

[1] http://www.modulecounts.com/

There's two distinct problems I see here, which probably plague most package managers:

1. Package naming: All the good names will be gone soon, which'll probably lead to big players trying to get package names of little players. Which will then result in broken dependencies a la left-pad. Afaik the latter has been solved in NPM [1]. The former is probably more of a usability problem, we want installation to be simple and able to install deps just by remembering their name.

2. The power of deps and our reliance on good will: When installing dependencies, we basically grant them the power to wreak any kind of havoc they want. The ways we mitigate the worst: Belief in the magical power of open source, mostly using libs that are popular (hence might've gotten a good read by an IT-sec person) and at enterprise scale some static analysis tools to get an idea of how it interacts with your system. I think we're in need of a technical solution at the package manager level, where a dependency has to explicitly ask for certain capabilities (similar to how Android apps work).

[1] http://blog.npmjs.org/post/141905368000/changes-to-npms-unpu...

I used Pr0gramm to kill time in university ~4 years ago and I'd definitely say that it has become more right-wing. Sure there are still discussions and people from all over the spectrum around, but right populism does seem to dominate.

Looks like they're using Event.srcElement which isn't part of the spec and Event.target has been supported since IE9. So all they would need to do is replace `event.srcElement` with `event.target || event.srcElement`. Ay!

PostCSS is what you're looking for: http://postcss.org

Interesting, never heard of the concept. Thank you, it seems to indeed solve that exact problem.

I hope something like this becomes as mature and usable as Neo4j.

I probably should've clarified that I was talking about n:m-relationships. And for that case I don't see how it would've been an apples/oranges comparison.

I used Neo4j for a few side projects but my go-to is still PostgreSQL. The largest flaw I see with Neo4j (and probably other graph databases as well) is that it forces you to think of your entities as either vertices or edges and that line tends to be not as clear as you might expect.

For example: (:Person)-[:BEFRIENDS]->(:Person)

If we'd want to store a date with that relationship, Neo4j got your back, that's entirely possible (= relationships can have attributes). But now our requirements change and we'd also want to have an entity for Events shared by friends (e.g. friendship anniversary), now we have to remodel our data to something like:

(:Person)-[:IS_IN]->(:Friendship)-[:HAS]->(:Event)

In SQL that wouldn't have been a remodel, because there's no difference between a relationship and an entity. We would've gone from:

Person(id) Friendship(person1_id, person2_id)

to:

Person(id) Friendship(person1_id, person2_id) Event(friendship_id)

So I feel like the vertice/edge distinction Neo4j makes, gets in the way of changing data model needs and I ultimately think that modeling your data as a graph is not helpful. Though it can be extremely helpful in querying and that's where its biggest strength lies.

I hear this a lot but I think the point is moot. It kind of reminds me of communists telling me that real communism has never been tried.

Okay okay I know, analogies are sinful. Sorry! My point is that this pure definition of REST doesn't conflict with what the parent comment outlined. I'd go even further and say that to implement in this purer, Content-Type agnostic, state-evolution by hyperlinks kind of way makes the implementation even harder (around as hard as it is to implement a GraphQL endpoint).

To be charitable, I'm gonna interpret this as hyperbole. If you meant this as its written, it'd be an immensly ignorant statement.

Almost by definition, there CAN always be a faster implementation in C++ but there are also more ways to shoot yourself in the foot (or as they saying with C++ goes, shoot your leg off).

What is the punishment for homosexuality within Shia Islam? What about apostasy? Caling it benign is what I'd call vending BS.

> S3. RDS. Elasticache.

A requirement for serverless would be having access to a general programming language which is why those examples don't really apply.

That is not true at all!

Flow was announced November 18, 2014: https://code.facebook.com/posts/1505962329687926/flow-a-new-...

Typescript got --strictNullChecks with Version 2 which was announced July 11, 2016: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/typescript/2016/07/11/annou...

Even if I'm being charitable and look for the date when the PR (https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/pull/7140) was merged, we'd only get April 2016.