kalcode

> So based on the article's own observation: no, of course not.

This had very little to the discussion. Of course it can't be replaced. Code is created by humans, and as long as we have opinions nothing gets truly replaced. Just decreased usage over time.

> C++ and Switft just became "more dominant".

Yup, like this. Of course a general statement is no.

I have very little interest in this topic. But I seen this SAME comment a million times on anything thats new that attempts to challenge something. And as usual whether something "dethrones" something is less interesting than what changes or ideas that it offers.

Just like ALL those you listed, they didn't replace any of those, but they definitely challenged the ecosystems, or improved the old ones.

Naunce discussion is far more interesting.

For example, why do you think Carbon won't be able to gain dominance over time? I mean I think thats a huge hurdle too.

I get it is a strange idea. But putting a quote that doesn't really have any substance isn't really an argument nor adding value against it.

I think the idea of 4 days work week is asking to work outside the box for a moment on what benefits this could entail for different industry.

> To work all week is to surrender your will, working less is the core of motivating man

(see this quote disagrees!)

The way that company has posted blog where they seem to have complete lack of understanding what graphql is and their comments on dev.to show a huge amount of disrespect.

The blogs posts comments themselves shows the company's author of these seems dense, rude and unknowledgeable in what they argue. Which also means their product they are making is likely being made by the same mindset.

Definitely wouldn't trust them.

It seems also like a ploy to get attention, which is definitely gonna keep me away from their product.

Seriously, check out these comment section. It's like they posted about something they have no clue about and then are gonna defend it to their grave regardless if they are wrong.

Wait until some security flaw comes out and this attitude makes them unwilling to admit they are wrong. Gross.

https://dev.to/polterguy/oop-a-software-development-mass-psy...

https://dev.to/polterguy/graphql-is-a-hot-smoking-pile-of-ga...

That is more related to the frontend, the frontend doesn't have to overfetch data.

But the graphql still will fetch that data and just filter what does out, it still has to get that data.

Example is a query like

``` { currentUser { id name todoLists { title items { name } } } } ```

The resolver will likely get the whole user object from the database, then just send name and id. Then when it finished getting the user, it will then query for the todo lists, and then only send the title (even though it got the whole row for each todo list), then after it fetches those lists, it will query for the items. And retrieve the whole rows of each item from the database.

The data the server needed to fetch didn't change, just what the frontend receives. It is still loading and fetching all the data on that query and then graphql filters the results leaving the server.

Also in the above steps, you notice it queries AGAIN after a data set has been retrieve, this causes an N+1 problem.

It is not inherent in the specs or implementation that fixes these. If you want to avoid fetching the whole object you will need custom code, and to avoid N+1 problem, you need batching of data within requests that "caches" or consolidate nested requests like data-loader, and some form of response caching to help with these issues.

Not siding against the tech, just clarifying those cons.

> It's still like putting comments above your functions.

If you're used to a certain language then sure that makes sense. Your comment seems like you are boxing yourself in, limiting yourself to just what makes sense in Javascript, very opposite of a programmer who looks to improve their craft.

Take a moment and think about that. Because it looks like Javascript comment...you only see it like that to a point of making this statement. There is a lot of ways different languages uses tokens/symbols to indicate something. Not everyone agrees what those symbols are used for. Some languages use it to define macros like C++ or preprocessor directives like C#. Some as comments JS/Python/. Some as like Java nothing.

Because the languages you use are use to it, and the language you use doesn't use something similar, it looks "wrong". That is in itself a narrow view.

I think you should question that kind of thinking, I believe it will be helpful.

> now that it has become evident that the brain is merely a kind of a computer

I am ignorant in this area. But I keep reading how brains are nothing like computers the more we learn. Your statement seems to suggest otherwise and id love to read about it. Can you drop something where I can start exploring about how the brain has become more evident that it's merely a kind of computer? Thanks!

Pretty important point for how far we should regulate something.

I think the gaming community would want loot-boxes completely banned under the guise of "gambling".

The individuals that would spend an unhealthy amount on these loot-boxes are not individuals that will stop their behavior if lootboxes are banned or even regulated.

These individuals have know that you can't get your money back, you can't earn more money and you can blow your life savings on it. With no return promised, monetarily, these individuals know the money they spend can't be gambled back. Thats the crux of gambling and their laws. People truly believes one more bet and they can get it all back.

It's insane if a person on Overwatch or Fortnite truly believes the money they waste if beyond their budget is a good investment at all. That problem lies with the individual not EA and loot boxes.

Those people will have constant issues with their finance until they seek the help they need to stop. That could be learning better budgeting behavior to identifying they have a gambling problem.

That could be a gambling impulse but really we know people that constantly spend their money carelessly regardless of some mental addiction. A lot of people lack of financial control shouldn't create laws to dictate to companies what they should do, especially in a market saturated with competition that don't deploy any of these practices simply because these people refuse to follow a monthly budget thats within their means.

We don't remove things from society just cause others have difficulty with it. Now I have no issue with more regulations especially targeted at kids, but let's be honest here. Most of this should still fall on parents and education. Companies caught pushing to sell these random loot-boxes to kids should be addressed and fined. Especially the ones that use streams that buy these boxes and open them with kids audiences. These companies that sponsored these streamers should receives fines for targeting kids. Also like to see some form of guarantee or odds exposure.

Long rant, but I find the fact you can't get monetary value back makes it extremely different than the current types of gambling and should effect the way we regulate it. End of the day, when no monetary value can be extracted we are regulating random chance and rewards...silly path to go down to call anything random and rewarding essentially gambling.

>because now you're paying the bulk JS load cost of loading Redux

Gonna have to quantify that. Cause I imagine if you did, you'd redact that statement. Redux is a very straightforwards and SMALL library that handles global state.

Its concept can be difficult to follow at first which may cause some to think it way more complex under the hood than it really is.

I don't think peoples complaints of YouTube are invalid at all.

But I think it is interesting how much credit these people that monetize YouTube don't give google at all.

Video hosting has always been expensive comparatively. They are large files. You tube stores multiple resolutions of your files.

YouTube hosting your video is free. You don't pay for it. These people that are bringing in $500 - $4,000 crying that 'youtube isn't giving me all my money' seem to also have a sense of entitlement in itself.

YouTube has a relationship with its creators. Creators get free video hosting, a video social platform and they can earn quite a bit of money doing it. YouTube in turns get a portion of the ad money too.

When YouTube demonetizes something they lose money too. They know their system can hurt their bottom-line in the end.

Understanding this is a business relationship between the two entities would probably make their attempts more professional. Maybe open a business that represents a large sets of these YouTubers instead of each one make a video about it. That way their collective views are significant chunk and they can apporoach YouTube as a professional entity.

Instead they post drama videos about it.

Broken Age from start to finish took less than three years to make and went over-budget but still managed to complete the game by creating the two parts into chapters to get early sales outside the original kickstarters.

People who have never managed or been part of managing big projects with deadlines don't understand that. They see the above as a failure rather than obstacles that they succeeded in getting over and releasing a moderate to good game.

Problem is when something crashes on Firefox it still tends to take everything with it. This is very annoying when developing something. Often when you have bad code as you are creating or changing things.

So for developing I still prefer Chrome. Besides that Firefox since quantum been very nice.

That isn't a very good argument. Just cause you downloaded something doesn't give you the rights to it.

If that was the case piracy would be legal, software trails wouldn't be legal. Windows license or photoshop trial up? Well I downloaded, your server fulfilled the request. I have legal rights to it now.

Oh, this art? I am selling it. Well I saw it on the internet, my computer downloaded, their servers fulfilled it. If they didn't want to hand over the rights they should've blocked me from viewing it.

That kind of argument is an argument I expect in a non-tech site with people making excuses. You know that isn't a solid argument you made at all.

The way the internet works doesn't create a vector that allows that. If they did implement that you'd need a multiple round trip check, the site would be slammed for being slow to respond cause it have to download a script, check if your blocking, report back then start the downloading process for the site. Just not feasible.

Those smaller sites would lose to bigger sites that can get away with slower response times or ignore pre-checking anyways.

A language being compiled or not has nothing to do with the web being free.

Like I said we can already pretty much transpile our code to practically speaking, an unreadable state.

Companies can already choose to make their code closed source and transpile it. If there goal is to make it more closed they can do that now.

WASM doesn't change that. People can still make their code open source, they can still write in plain javascript. Its really no different. Instead we are giving people options and the ability to have more performant apps in the ones that require it.

This is a pretty ridiculous response. There have been compiled languages way before interpreter/jit ones and these didn't halt the advancement of programming and programming communities, especially the sharing code and ideas part.

Also you shouldn't need access to code to create your own solution. Many people have been reverse engineering or borrowing from ideas in the compiled world. When I copy something I like I don't typically look at their code, I focus on the functionality and break down what its doing so i can reimplement it.

The fact you are focusing on centralization is basically saying "i can't steal someone eases code". The web promised to be free and open and that had nothing to do with whether or not you could read the javascript.

Most modern javascript on site is rather unreadable due to being transpiled anyways. There is still an option to use plain javascript instead of WASM. Just like now you can use plain javascript instead of transpiling it.

> A lightweight & simple alternative to lodash/underscore

Lodash full is 24kb. Mout is 450kb...

Not light weight at all. The advantage is that its modular so your bundles would only include the libraries you require. Oh wait lodash does that. So Lodash is a more lightweight alternative to mout...

That was the first library, Underscore or Lodash.

>no account verification required

I keep hearing this but I made an account recently with no email verification. Recently as in one week ago. I put in a no email address actually. YOu can go sign up right now, leave the email field empty and hit next, you can do the whole sign-up process without an email.

> retina screens and the only usable touchpad in laptops

I mean I don't have a side in this convo. But if you are gonna put up a argument at least make it not sound fanboyish.

Plenty of laptops with similar ppi (what makes retina...retina) and plenty with good touchpads.

Many reasons to choose different laptops including Apples, but those you listed the competitors have themselves. Apple just markets their retina displays as 'special' when its all about pixel density and most laptops have moved in the direction of offering comparable ppi.

> This sort of mangling is disappointing from a tech-focused news outlet like The Verge. It also reinforces the implicit association between Kodi and piracy, which is the very thing that caused Google to remove Kodi from search results in the first place.

This sort of mangling is exactly how exaggerated misrepresented news gets spread. Google didn't remove Kodi from their search results. You can type Kodi and it's the first thing that pops up.

You can type home theater software and get Kodi in the search results, or open source media player and get Kodi.

All they did is remove Kodi from being autocompleted. It still even comes up for autosuggestion.

You only pay a price because you are using someone else system. Which cost money. Public library are public, you also pay taxes on them. Because using it as a service still has a cost.

Google give you 1TB on data to query each month. That is a lot of data, if you need more for free collect the data over time.

But you still need a library card and if the facility gets overused they ask for a small tax to cover the operating costs.

I fail to see how this isn't considered public. Public literally just means accessible to the general public. That all. A public event can still charge a fee for entry. As long as the fee doesn't create a barrier for most the public, you know accessible to the general public.

Also if a library sold their data would it no longer be considered public? I believe it would still be considered public. User data isn't sold typically by name or email, byt activity. If a library compiled a list of books checked out and their frequency, the amount of people entering everyday etc that be the equivalent of most user data being sold. Very rare for a company to sell your actual personal data, when they do they disassociate your personal information with it.

So if the above doesn't disqualify a library from being public, then neither would this dataset that is public. If you really disagree with that then you are just trying to be pedantic at that point.

A public library still requires a library card...

the term public means its available to the public. Signing up google, library card, doesn't negate that fact that any member of the public can access the data with a reasonable and insignificant barrier.

> I said that it is impossible for the source of that attitude to be a desire to get to what the cuisine was like before the discovery of America.

I didn't gather that from your reply. I apologise for misunderstanding.

I agree with that point. But I also don't think people are 'wanting' what it was like before in either attitude.

I think it something else, maybe a way to seem more 'culture' or a way to seperate themselves from common 'americans'? I mean i don't really know where it stems from.

Example is we have quite a few people that complains how all these 'chemicals' and stuff in our food is killing us and how they only buy organic and they won't eat this or that cause of the 'processing' and then they light a cigarette and crack open a can of PBR.

A lot of times we identify with something on a different level then is logical, I believe the same is happening with a lot of these people and 'authenticity'. I could be wrong though, but I believe we are all susceptible to this kind of behavior.

As someone from Texas I can definitely say from first hand the attitude I experience from people snubbing 'authenticity' in other cuisine is the same I hear towards 'Tex-Mex'.

I have gone to many local restaurants where local ingredients are used and not mass-produced and seen the same attitude from friends, colleague or acquaintances in my life.

I also extensively worked in the kitchen, in fact it was my first career, and i can say the attitude was prevlevant there too.

I've worked with plenty of people from mexico itself that had less of that attitude since they could actually see the influence of different dishes and spices in both foods.

So I can pretty much guarantee from actual experience this attitude stems from the same attitude that other people have that leads them to say things like 'italy doesn't have pepperoni pizza' or 'french wine will always be better than nappa' etc. It stems from the same place.

I will concede there are probably people like you describe, but the issue the article describes and the issue I am talking about is seen quite a bit against 'tex-mex'.

People are always taken back about how much classic staples didn't exist prior to the discovery of America. On top of that realization is that the food wasn't adopted immediately. Meaning a lot of common dishes didn't exist until after 1700/1800s.

Things like tomato sauce and pasta in italian cuisine wasn't until almost 1800. Yet we talk about 'authentic' cuisine we usually use it in context way before 'America'. Yet most cuisine we eat didn't come into existence until AFTER America.

Another example is chilis in thai cuisine. Capsicum didn't make it over the ocean until america was discovered. So all the spicy peppers in so many dishes from Thai to Vietnamese food didn't exist in their cooking until it was brought over and eventually incorporated.

Potatoes is another one. Originated in Peru. Russian potato vodka? Irish Potatoes? Germans bangers and mash?

Nope, nada until America was discovered.

Chocolate, Vanilla. Staples of desserts of european cooking...except not until America was discovered.

These above ingredients alone are associated with so many traditional recipes but they didn't exist until recently. It really shows how quickly food and traditions change and the idea of 'authenticity' is over blown.

They hit you with 'Chargeback fraud'. They can cancel your card, put it on your credit history redcord and can choose to press charges.

Yes their implementation seems to be overly aggressive.

To me if you are saving more money by having this than not, why make it so aggressive? Better to catch the few then catch customers that aren't taking advantage of it and not catch every abuser.

>If you stop accepting returns

They are trying to stop people who abuse the policies, not returns altogether. The article never says the retailers are making a move to stop returns from everyone. That kinda defeats the point you are trying to make.

>If I can't return an item, I will be much more cautious about buying in the first place.

Sounds like its working then. The point is the customers that feel they don't need to research an item they are purchasing cause they can 'just return it' are the ones they want to be more cautious about buying in the first place cause you are costing them more money.

Really sounds like you are arguing against a scenario that isn't taking place. You are actually bringing up points that made them decide to do this. They can deter constant returners from using returns as a 'try any item you like and return it' and also deter return frauds.

Well if you do and you constantly do chargebacks then you will get hit with fraud from your credit card company.

In a truly free-market who would enforce this 'transparency'?

That is the whole point against it, no one would enforce it.

You say the people would but would they? Would they care? People in the US know about 'blood' diamonds, heck a movie came out with an extremely famous cast and helped get lots of people aware of the dirty trade of diamonds.

Diamonds still sell extremely well. Banking on the common person to push for transparency and help improve the market by not 'supporting' these diamonds doesn't work already. They know about diamonds trade and people still constantly buy them.

Free market as an economic model really isn't considered acceptable in a laissez-faire approach. So I would have attacked 'free market' and people respond with 'economist don't actually believe a true free-market would work well in today modern world.'

Instead I attack the ones that are actually driving to make policies that reflect a 'free-market', deregulate and push the ideology. Those are the ones pushing for an unreasonable policies.