246 karma · joined March 9, 2015
The OpenCode docs suggest its possible, but it only works with their extension (not in an already open VS Code terminal) with a very specific keyboard shortcut and only barely at that.
Also, you're just wrong? You literally cannot serve RSC components _at all_ even in TanStack Start yet. Even when support for them is added it will be opt-in for only certain kinds of RPC functions and they will work slightly differently than they do in Next.js app router(where they are the default everywhere). RPC != RSC.
Plus you can always stick to using TanStack Router exclusively (zero server at all) and you never will even have to worry about anything to do with RSCs...
What app router has become has its ideal uses, but if you explicitly preferred the DX of the pages router, you might enjoy TanStack Router/Start even more.
However, if you want to lean that direction where it is a helpful addition they recently added some tRPC integrations that actually let you add oRPC alongside an existing tRPC setup so you can do so or support a longer term migration.
Luckily, oRPC had progressed enough to be viable now. I cannot recommend it over ts-rest enough. It's essentially tRPC but with support for ts-rest style contracts that enable standard OpenAPI REST endpoints.
Pair programming is endlessly frustrating beyond just rubber duckying because I’m having to exit my mental model, communicate it to someone else, and then translate and relate their inputs back into my mental model which is not exactly rooted in language in my head.
https://open-wc.org/guides/knowledge/styling/styles-piercing...
En masse though, it seems not ideal from a cost perspective the way things have been scheduled up until now. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it might be adjusted better in the future.
So basically the "rush hour" program has likely been costing me more money than if I just ignored them to begin with up to this point. I do realize these programs are primarily about limiting peak gross load and not saving individuals money but maybe I won't go out of my way to abide by them now...
While, instinctively, the previews below the video feel odd because they've been to the right for so long. Logically, I can see the improvement they are going for here and would welcome it.
Like this?
- https://angular.io/guide/hierarchical-dependency-injection#u...
- (new docs site) https://angular.dev/guide/di/hierarchical-dependency-injecti...
Template literals are just a feature of javascript, it's not even anything that bespoke. That's why it's called "lit". The output of those tag functions are just rendered with standard DOM features too.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
If nothing else they have proved the competition was needed.
Claims that this process inflates the process of BTC seem far to exaggerated. It's reallocating value that was already there. Firstly, someone has to sell the BTC in order to buy the Tether with it so that argument is somewhat of a moot point. And if they are selling the BTC for USD or other fiat it's actually increasing the sell pressure of BTC against said fiat. It might open the opportunity for trades/swaps which could drive the price either direction faster...but it doesn't make value out of thin air.
I'm not saying Tether is not responsible for poorly investing or protecting the collateral that backs their coin. I'm just saying I can't compute the claims that this is some sort of manipulation scheme. The concept is exactly the same as decentralized stable coins like DAI except the backer is a centralized entity and not a contract. Does me minting DAI magically pump the value of ETH because that is the coin I put up as collateral? No that's a ridiculous claim. I can however feel comfortable holding DAI knowing that the contract will enforce the value of the token no matter the price of the ETH backing it.
> Where does the funding come from to print tether?
When they mint 1 Tether they sell it on an exchange for $1. They don't need anyone to upfront lock up $1 and then also sell it for $1...
Are stablecoins not just essentially an interest free loan to the minter? That's why hundreds of them are popping up all over the place. Minters can go invest that money however conservatively they want and just rack up free interest on billions. Why the hell would they NOT print more if there is demand. Consequently, why the hell would they need to participate in any illegal activity when the can print interest free loans whenever they want?
Yes, ideally you'd prefer someone with this position to be overcollatorized and not simply ensure $1 = 1 tether. But that is the risk you take holding that stablecoin. Pick up DAI if you want an overcollatorized asset.
I just don't see the incentive for some of the other arguments out there - many imply they are just printing it and selling it for $0 I guess? Or is the argument they just siphon the money to another organization? Because that would be a more valid concern. There just seems to be this assumption that somehow someone is fronting or magically creating value from nothing. No, the market is by buying newly minted Tether on exchanges. That's where the funding comes from. How is this not obvious?
There is probably a lot more depth to this topic than I am aware of, but some of the top upvoted comments here just seem to be spewing nonsense.
tldr; If a stablecoin minter sells a newly minted coin for $1...then by definition there is now $1 available to back that coin. Stop conspiring where the funds are coming from. The worry should be how they are investing said collateral backing the coins from there.
Also who gives a shit if they just got verbally harassed for an hour. I don’t get to lose my shit and delete a project because someone keeps submitting bad code. Why do cops get to lose their temper when their job is to keep the peace and enforce the law. Learn to control yourself and do your job or find another profession.