Yeah React in particular really feels like a settled frontend standard now. If anything, JavaScript seems to be changing more slowly than it did during the turbulent Angular/React/Vue days.
4,148 karma · joined February 14, 2018
Sadly this mentality tends to make it more difficult to do the things you need to dig yourself out of a depressive episode. It's self-reinforcing.
But he isn't particularly interested in that, because he is a political hack.
Thankfully, he is at least wrong about Obergefell, which was decided on different, and much firmer, grounds than the right-to-privacy cases. But carrying out the logic from this decision to others does indeed threaten Griswold and Lawrence, and especially Griswold, which was basically the direct precedential precursor to Roe.
Not only is it (obviously) less distinct than a border or an edge where color changes, it breaks outside the visual box model of the page due to spreading outside the element's grid placement, which makes everything look less distinctly part of a grid. box-shadow, when relied on to distinguish edges, is anathema to the human visual system in an unconsciously subtle way. It's fit for light touches that add onto an already clear and accessible design but never for relying on to achieve clarity or accessibility.
We realized this during the flat design era but then proceeded to overshoot things pretty far until exterminating shadows became a hot trend. Now there's a backlash, of which 'neumorphism' is the apex, which swings things too far back in the other direction. Just keep shadows light and use them sparingly, it's not too hard.
If you have a sufficiently popular CRUD, and you don't go our of your way to stop them, bad actors will leverage it to do crimes. It's that simple.
Obviously this should be replicated and if not replicable, should be dismissed. But it's perplexing to dismiss it out of hand because its effects weren't strong enough for an array of other totally unrelated health outcomes.
I want to be Admiral Ackbar shouting "GREEN GROUP, STICK CLOSE TO HOMING SECTOR MV-7" and for that to actually result in RTS units moving on a map. I want to be Captain Picard shouting "ALL POWER TO FORWARD SHIELDS" and for that to actually result in a change in resource allocation of the 'power' resource.
This is wrong. When precedent is overturned, it's because the law struck down was never consistent with the amendment(s) at issue.
Segregation was not perfectly consistent with the 14th Amendment prior to Brown v. Board, it was never consistent with it, from the time of its passage. The court upheld it in Plessy v. Ferguson not because it was okay then and the 'living document' subsequently changed and it became not-okay, but because the court made a glaringly wrong decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.
I see your point, but I think it's broader than something that can be attributed solely to cars.
I've lived in apartments and condos in the hearts of major American cities my entire adult life, and I'm surrounded by the same phenomenon in different form. I know maybe 3 of my neighbors in the hall from walking past them and saying hi once in a while, but besides that, I have basically no contact with them.
My partner grew up in an eastern European country and she tells stories of how, on holidays, people would go out to the hallways of her apartment building to congregate and drink and hang out. This concept seems totally alien to me. I'm pretty sure if a resident tried congregating in the hallways of any of the buildings I've lived in, security would be called to clear them out.
I've only lived in urban well-off-millennial type places. Maybe this is something unique to the upper-middle class and above. But I don't think it's entirely about suburbia.
https://twitter.com/willnorris/status/1518694675909013504
Which seems like a promise they intend to actually open source something there.
>So what happens after that 24 hours? The way you've described it here, it sounds like there's an up/down voting system after the cooldown period to either confirm or block the proposed measure, but it's not clear to me how that works. Who has control over that final decision?
Anyone with at least 0.15% (IIRC) of voting power could propose a measure, at which point it would show up on the web app frontend with every LP token holder's vote defaulting to "No". It would have to accrue "Yes" votes from holders of >50% of LP tokens within a certain time period to pass. Alternatively, holders of >2/3rds of LP token could force pass a measure immediately, though this wasn't implemented on the web app frontend. But each of these was subject to a 24 hour period -- no measure that hadn't been proposed at least 24 hours ago could pass, even by supermajority.
A supermajority was required. The attacker purchased enough LP tokens to secure one. At the moment of the attack they held about 70% of voting power.
Unanimous voting wouldn't have been particularly useful because it would never be used. You can't ever convince every last investor to log in and pay gas to vote on a governance measure.
There was a protection in place, which was that the measure must be up for 24 hours before it can be passed. But the critical flaw was that the contents of a measure can be swapped out by a supermajority token holder, even after the 24 hour cooldown period. The attacker threw up 2 measures, one pointing to a nonexistent contract address, and another dummy measure as a diversion that would have transferred $250,000 to Ukraine and $10,000 to a wallet they owned. The diversion worked, and everyone spent the 24 hour period discussing why someone thought they could hoodwink the LP token holders into swindling $10,000 from them, and more or less ignored the second measure. Then, during the attack, the attacker deterministically created the treasury liquidation contract at the formerly blank address and used the flash loaned supermajority to pass it.
Pretty much the sole reason I've been told over and over again for the past decade that ours was "the best sex [they've] ever had".
If you have sex with women, you need to read it.
The problem is that what makes that sacrifice potentially worth it at an early-stage startup is the potential for equity before hypergrowth. Amazon has virtually no chance of startup-like hypergrowth anymore; recently its stock has even started declining. So employees are being asked to provide outsized sacrifice for declining returns. Predictably, massive resignation and retention problems are the result.