pwdisswordfish0

Whether new developers need to worry about developing for OG .NET or not (I agree that they shouldn't) doesn't really have anything to do with what people who talk about OG .NET should call it in order to make it clear that OG .NET is what they're talking about.

> It appears that an individual did inadvertently send an email to an AF-All email address. The individual was looking for help with a computer issue and mistakenly added the wrong address.

I know why people opt for this sort of linguistic puffery. I know not, though, whether they realize that it has the opposite effect on anyone who has the competence and mastery that they're trying to emulate. It seems like a "no"; otherwise, they wouldn't do something that makes them look so stupid.

I thought that was called "progressive enhancement". I like that too

The way that "Well, there's tons of conflicting advice out there if that's the case" was situated/employed in the discussion makes it sound like an attempt to say that there are merits on both sides of the argument--that there are conflicting opinions and the argument is as of yet still unresolved. The problem is that the comments you linked to are uninformed and just flat out wrong--bad advice from people who don't know what they're talking about and in no position to be giving advice. (Another example: the comment by samatman above, which should be buried in downvotes but inexplicably is not even in the grey--and I suspect is actually ranked somewhere at >1.) The only prudent thing to do is to clearly bracket it as such, in order to minimize harm.

It's obvious there was a joke in the comment. It just didn't lie in the conflating-/not-conflating-things-with-JS part of the comment. Also, it was lame.

Not a name change, just an editorial prescription for discussions. The proper name is .NET Framework (just don't call it that!).

"Framework" is such a poor differentiator to contrast with modern .NET (owing to the original poor naming decision in the first place--it's not like ".NET" itself is amazing) that it's hard, from a casual reading, to pick up on the fact that "Framework" is even being used a differentiator.

I propose that when people want to differentiate between the modern .NET Core vs the legacy closed source .NET implementation, the latter is referred to as "OG" .NET (in casual and business-casual contexts, at least).

Yeah no, it’s definitely the price and the hassle of getting a ticket. I probably live in the best developed area in Germany, public transit wise. I could be in the next big city center in 10 minutes by train, but without the €9 ticket I frequently took the car (which I have to have for rural reasons), because apparently rather than paying €12.40 I preferred driving 30 minutes, finding and paying for parking, and not drinking. Because it’s not just paying 12.40, it’s figuring out what ticket to get, being shocked by the price, calculating a thousand and one fare options to try and penny-pinch myself to a clean conscience, dealing with their fucking ticket machines or their fucking app, begrudgingly committing to a time and a train… Hating every part of it and feeling hated back by Deutsche Bahn at every step of the way, knowing they’ll readily fuck me over if they find the tiniest excuse.

The €9 ticket got you around without playing stupid games. The same freedom is either unavailable otherwise, or comes at absolutely unjustifiable prices.

No, that's still not JS. JS is a programming language. It doesn't mean "any program that runs in the browser".

Rust isn't JS...

You get it that you're proving the point that comments like those are harmful, right?

Not sure what you want. A link where this is clearly outlined? The license is two sentences and sets out the terms.

The repeated distinction between source code and "artifacts" in this context is pure make-believe. The license doesn't even have those words in it, let alone say something like "Redistribution and use in source form requires inclusion of this permission notice and the above copyright notice, but if you're just building a product and publishing it as non-source code artifacts instead of distributing source, then lol don't worry about it bro" (or whatever it is the people here seem to think).

The CodeMirror maintainer definitely expects people who build closed source stuff to include the notices that are in the CodeMirror LICENSE file. And anyone telling you the license doesn't require this (and e.g. this is a peculiarity of CodeMirror itself) is delusional.

Don't look to people who don't know what they're talking about to "clear things up" for you. If you think they have any qualms about leaving you to deal with the blowback after misleading you with uninformed takes (and pointing the finger at you for putting your faith in them to begin with), then you're setting yourself up to be burned.

There's a reason why everyone who has their ducks in a row (in other words, people with competent legal counsel along with something to lose, e.g. Mozilla, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc) will bake something like about:license into the stuff they work on, even if it's buried in some "open source licenses" entry of an About screen reachable by the last menu item in the system settings. Spoiler alert: it's because they have to—in order to comply with the terms of the license. It's not because they just think it's the nice thing to do. (And definitely not because it's fun and easy to do, because it's not.)

> It's true of source code but not artifacts.

That's simply not true. Please don't do stuff like this—to go off and make these kind of proclamations in public. It's negligent at best.

The docs say that this is using CodeMirror. The CodeMirror license says that you're allowed to use CodeMirror for your stuff, but that stuff has to in turn include:

1. the copyright notice

2. the text itself that explains that you/others have this permission/obligation

Currently, it looks like NumPad isn't doing either.

From comments here, NumPad is evidently also using decimal.js, which has similar terms.

It’s cool and all, and I don’t mean to knock it in any way, but how is this not entirely “about novel aesthetics”?

Highly recommended book! Robin Williams apparently also played an indirect role, suggesting the OP’s question at some conference of the Software Publisher’s Association (although this is apocryphal even according to the book).

I also find it pretty amusing that the other big name on video game boxes – although not much involved with the games themselves – Tom Clancy, established this custom with a Sid Meier game, Tom Clancy’s Red Storm Rising.

There is actually only one other name I can think of that prominently appeared on the box, American McGee. Will Wright, Shigeru Miyamoto, Hideo Kojima, Tim Schafer, Ron Gilbert, John Romero and John Carmack could have pulled it off, but AFAIK never did, although their popularity did boost many a game’s sales. Cliffy B also comes to mind as a game designer I can put a name and face to.

Great Star Trek reference, that’s exactly what I mean

I suppose that must be true in as much as technology and culture influence each other, but while the term “meme” is fairly new, the phenomenon is quite universal. Like, what’s funny about Kilroy Was Here [0] or drawing that constructivist S-shape in elementary school [1]?

Another thing to consider apart from cultural differences and translations is that a lot can go wrong betwen a hit joke being told and a scribe getting around to immortalising it. It’s obviously a game of telephone. Comedy is a craft and written comedy is different from stage comedy. I can imagine a joke absolutely killing at the end of a stand-up set, but falling flat when told in isolation, because it was a call-back or otherwise profited from a primed audience. It’s quite likely that someone might naively retell only the bit that got the laughs and only then realise their mistake. Or the shared experience of the audience might elevate a bit to an in-joke that is only funny to them because they know the rest. Decades later, only the devolved memes that obliquely reference this shared knowledge survive in writing and future generations are left wondering what was wrong with their ancestors’ odd humour.

Here’s hoping future generations will be aware of Douglas Adams’ work, but it seems entirely possible that in a thousand years, people will speculate why our we found towels or the number 42 so funny.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilroy_was_here [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_S

I’m surprised noone has brought up what I recall being told was the oldest known joke. Not sure about the specifics, but IIRC it’s from a mesopotamian cuneiform tablet and goes something like “Name something that never happened — A wife has never farted in her husband’s lap”. Supposedly a reference to the common knowledge at the time that everyone involved (or maybe just the wife) would vehemently deny it if it did happen, or perhaps awkwardly pretend it didn’t happen, knowing well that everyone noticed and politely joins in the pretense.

I don’t like it when people act as if these were objectively bad jokes. Many jokes are very dependent on a specific cultural moment as well as carefully crafted wording. Lots of current jokes fall can flat if you slightly change the phrasing, even if they aren’t word play. And then there’s delivery, pacing, knowing your audience…

Surely widespread literacy and technology allow modern people to develop comparably sophisticated tastes just by the sheer wealth of entertainment we consume, but people 5000 years ago were still people and I’m sure they found humour in similar places as we do.

edit: here’s a source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-joke-odd-idUSKUA147851200... Again, I would take issue with the reduction to “toilet humour”. Clearly the comedy of manners aspect plays the larger role, even if farts are somehow eternally funny.

Lol, leave it to Google to make a simple list of pngs incompatible with Firefox. Wtf is data-srcset?

> and to reward based on performance instead of seniority

You say that like it's a bad thing. (Also, generally unheard of in the types of places we're discussing; you don't get paid more for being good. You get paid more for be good enough for longer.)

> No other company in the industry comes anywhere close.

Arguably not the same industry (but devastatingly adjacent): have a look at FedEx warehouses. Recently as low as $13.xx/hr, same sort of grueling work, plus the privilege of not knowing whether you'll need to show up at 4:00 AM or 7:00 AM. You don't get to know that until the night before, when you call a phone number around 8 or 9 to listen to a recorded message that will tell you. (Even then, you might show up only to find tape over the time clocks with a note that they're going to be starting later, after all, with the expectation that you'll just hang out off the clock in the meantime and then start at the new designated time.¹) And you have no idea how long you'll be working, either (except that it won't be 8 hours). 5–6 hours is possible. ~3 hours is probable. So you'll need to work 6 or 7 days just for the chance that you might get close to 30 hours. Ridiculously high turnover, as expected.

1. Yes, really. This is begging for a DoL inquiry; "Package Handlers are always paid for TIME WORKED [...] In the future please meet with your manager before just leaving. Thank you." — says a FedEx Ground facility's Area Manager, "Crystal", in an email.

> They were the first to $15[...] now they pay closer to $18 by me

This is bullshit.

I'm sure there's some Hollywood accounting justification for this claim, but over 10 years ago close to $18/hr is what you could expect to make as associate working in the distribution center of another big corporate behemoth: Walmart. We're talking low-skill grindwork smack dab in the post-economic collapse, and that $18/hr figure does not account for the "veteran" workers on the receiving end of the more-or-less guaranteed annual pay bumps that come with just continuing to work there. (They were making $20+/hr.) Again, not now in the current post-COVID era (because otherwise who cares), but over 10 years ago.

It blew me away when a few years ago I learned that Amazon was only paying something like $13.

So Amazon is $15 today? Who cares. Almost every fast food place around is paying close to that now, I'm told. $15 is so low that no one was getting paid that low at the Walmart DC that I'm familiar with, which (again, since it bears repeating) was over 10 years ago.

Citation needed.

This is not a problem if you use proper redirects.

In case that wasn’t rhetorical, AFAIK smoking is known to dull one’s sense of taste. I would imagine smokers to be less picky eaters and drinkers for this reason as well.

The apostrophe use in this post is out of control.

This was also made into a short film: http://www.bearsdiscoverfire.com/watchnow

It’s gorgeous, but I found the story much better.

> Any contribution that M$ makes to open source or open standards is to support their own bottom line

Does Microsoft contribute financially to any social programs or other philanthropic projects? Are all those contributions done solely to support their bottom line?