176 karma · joined June 10, 2020
The vast majority of the time, the browswer is infact going to be the only client.
once you reach the point where its not, then build the api to suit the new client rather then trying to build one that does both.
but sure, lets ignore over a century of research and progress because someone wants to ask "what if" and treat all that as an emotional response.
Never have truer words been spoken.
As I tell all the new juniors at work doing sysadmin type tasks, everyone has deleted the production database at least once. Mistakes will always happen, it's how you deal with them that defines how good you are at the end of the day.
or have we forgotten that plain hold HTML can validate much of this for us with no JS of any type required?
unfortunately this also needs to be done server side, unless your trusting the client to send you information that is what your expecting?
client side validation makes for a good user experience, but it does not replace the requirement to validate things server side, and many times you will end up doing the same validations for different reasons.
also like it or not, by paying for support people have a right to expect that the company being paid will be engaging with you and the request you are putting into there system, not that you will have to find a person to chase down because your tickets are being ignored.
in reality your licence is only as strong as your ability to enforce it.
Despite having a reasonably large contract with them at work, we had multiple support tickets go without response for months, with at least one that I am aware of being left open for almost 2 years before being closed as "won't fix"
Noting that its only my personal experience I am sure plenty of others have had the opposite experience, however I have found canonical support to be vastly superior as as such I would never chose RH if support was the primary thing I was after.
the linking is done simply by looking up who the plane is registered to, and that is also public information.
you can of course always go the other way, look who owns a plane, and the go to flight information from there.
there is nothing private about any of the information used in the process.
There is no value in reinventing the wheel, and not doing so gives you time to do other things that will give you value so someone should always be asking the question of if something should be done.
It is interesting when you look at the reading results, in particular the only significant difference in reading speed was for people that typed using 2 spaces at the end of a sentence, when they also were reading a document formatted that way. (I note that the other 3 articles cite back to the same source study)
This would appear to show that considering most people outside the legal profession do not follow that convention, that there is no real benefit, particularly when even this improvement was not considered statistically significant in the study.
I did a quick skim of the course notes, and I can defiantly agree with the principals your teaching. I hope your students appreciate just how important those points are in all there written communication.
I would suggest rather then some arcane spacing convention, the simplicity and clarity of the wording is objectively far more important then any style guide. I would also suggest that this is something the legal profession is generally very bad at with the amount of legal jargon found in most documents produced in the profession.
The fact that the rest of society has moved on is a fairly clear indication that this subjective premise that 2 spaces is in some way better, shows it clearly does not show enough objective benefit to remain in use or it would be common practice in all of society.
edit: a sibling comment has provided links to a study on this, showing there is not statistically significant improvement in reading speeds reinforcing that this formatting is not objectivly better.
If they are coming to you telling you the deadline and asking if you can meet it you know your going to have problems with them. Invariably they won't have a backup for when its not done on time for whatever reason.
like it or not, there are always people who will see this as the lesser evil because of their personal circumstances don't give them other options.
If you want your employees to be productive, you provide them tools to achieve that, otherwise you get what you pay for.
It's the Companies that are acting entitled in this situation, not the workers.
if they can't justify paying ~$100 for my ide of choice, then they are costing them selves far more in lost productivity, and that's not my problem.
add gun control into the mix and this chance goes WAY down.
"If you startle them they could open fire sending a stray bullet into your kids room"
As could you by opening fire in an attempt to stop the attacker. Noting the majority of gun owners never use them, they are far more likely to cause harm them prevent it.
The "protection" argument is best served by reducing the number of weapons in circulation, not by arguing your ability to use one to protect yourself.
Not to mention making these kind of things makes the criminals that are doing this stand out, and that is something they generally want to avoid.
This doesn't ring true, it just moves the incentive to people to build housing to live in them selves, and with less competition in the market it would drive prices down.