shevy

Very unlikely - I am sure you can be identified too.

Either way it is ethically questionable.

Another example of how evil mozilla has become.

This is not bad - Mozilla employees can then be put in prison.

It's also one way to do away with mozilla.

It's not "kinda shitty" - it is an act of betrayal by mozilla.

The company once known to care about user privacy, now u-turned and works against you.

The sooner mozilla dies, the better. It has become evil - not as evil as google yet, but on its way towards more and more evilness.

Now mozilla totally lost it.

I realized a few months ago that mozilla is run by google drones, so it no longer surprises me that mozilla kills itself.

But the level of stupidity is amazing. I think the people who work there are deliberately recruited in regards to who is the better one at killing off mozilla.

I don't like the name.

For those who don't know german, Jaeger is "Jäger" is hunter/ranger. A somewhat neutral term in itself but there is also a slight, somewhat remote connection towards some part of the history ("Jagdstaffel" and what not). I have absolutely no idea if this has anything to do with it, mind you - but since the main authors appear to be in the USA, I find that very awkward. Why not just stick to some english name? That would seem a much better it. Or perhaps they think german names are awesome ... it's also weird when you see all the people write Jaeger rather Jäger...

Many twitch streamers prefer patreon.

I have no idea; just stating that I noticed it when watching some twitch events.

Yeah. They have now become dependent on external decision makers.

I wonder if we'll have to read notes such as "how patreon was once great" ... before a sell-out to some other company will happen.

However had, that being said, I applaude the guys who actually bootstrapped the whole thing. The 60 million is of course great, but I think that their INITIAL idea worked in practice, is much, much cooler than the 60 million they got.

Unfortunately I fear that Google has become too big for the whole world and will slurp up everything that can be a competition, just like they slurped up youtube too at one point in time. And we all know that money moves people, so there is that - github, patreon, twitch. Google has things to buy.

Pretty nice success story.

Unfortunately money changes the way how companies work - and often not to the better.

Well said. More monopoly control by a company that has already gotten way too big for the world to (want to) swallow.

But we did not have AMP until recently.

So OTHERS made a new decision for YOU - as the visitor.

Oh wow, I did not even notice this until you pointed it out.

So the solution is SO bad that the "amp" tag even becomes part of the URL?!

Now THAT is really weird ... well aside from me disliking AMP anyway, that ... hmmm. We can send people to the moon, probably soon elswhere but ... we have to denote that ... we use AMP by ... a appended string called 'amp'.

Google should be ashamed of this "engineering".

They moved most of their stuff away from AWS.

> While cost is always something that we consider, our > goal with our network expansion was to improve > performance, reliability, flexibility and control > for our users — which we have succeeded in doing,” > a company spokesperson told TechCrunch.

Who believes this?

It was, easily noticable by everyone, wanting to reduce the cost. Which is fine, everyone does so, so why not admit that it was the primary impetus?

I would not want to outsource control over any larger company that I were to run to other, even bigger companies.

There are already certain laws that prohibit certain content.

But this is not the issue in this case; neither are ISIS propaganda videos.

This here is corporate and state-controlled censorship that has no legal basis at all whatsoever aimed at controlling research. That is MUCH worse than propaganda by others.

> Where do you stand on copyrighted content, on illegal > material (some of which may be legal in some countries > but not others), distasteful or offensive material?

Again - how does your comment relate to censoring research or information that the US government arbitrarily considers "illegal"?

> If you want to share politically sensitive content, > I think it's fair to say that YouTube isn't your friend.

Google runs Youtube. So, Google is not your friend. I agree with this.

Very true.

But it gets even worse when you look at lobbyists paid by corporations.

In the long run, Google will have to be split up into smaller pieces. You can't control this evil - and greedy -corporation otherwise anymore.

Well, no surprise - ever since Google turned fully evil, it has been working against mankind.

It's a wonderful opportunity to stop using Google-related products and feed more evilness into Google.

See here for someone abandoning archlinux in favour of voidlinux:

http://halestrom.net/darksleep/blog/005_distrohop_p1/

Note that the primary impetus was actually not necessarily that archlinux has degraded in quality over the years ever since Judd was no longer in charge, but primarily that systemd interferes with everything.

I have this suspicion that the author may still be a happy archer, but systemd made him reconsider. And archlinux made a deliberate decision to switch to systemd without alternatives, so I really can not hold anyone but the new archlinux developers responsible for that.

Projects often change with the "under new management" syndrome - that is inevitable.

> Sadly, this has become a very political debate

This is only partially true. While I agree that there is a lot of conflict between pro-and-con systemd, the major issue is that some random guys here and there decide - and subsequently dictate - onto everyone else THEIR particular mind view. And I think that this is the much more upsetting thing.

> so much of my opinion is based on biased second-hand accounts.

Many who dislike systemd do so not because of "political reasons" but of REAL PROBLEMS THAT THEY HAVE ENCOUNTERED.

I also encounted this, such as an infinite loop of systemd at boot-up time. And I had no patience to want to debug any of it. Went back to slackware again, true and tested; it is only a base for LFS/BLFS for me though. If anyone asks, I rather use GoboLinux - but I also can not recommend anyone currently to use GoboLinux until a few more things have been resolved. It's still the best by far.

There is nothing wrong with slackware per se, mind you. It's a bit slow in its development taste for my taste ... but it is still the closest towards "oldschool linux".

Many years ago, I bought a red hat set of CD and SuSE. Installed both... had a GUI. Knew nothing what to do.

Then I installed debian. I think it was woody or potato back then... xorg did not work, but the commandline worked, so I worked through the old handbook learning *nix. :-)

That was great!

Since systemd, I no longer touch anything of debian. devuan is the true successor here - the debian devs abandoned the users.

Until then, I can recommend voidlinux for one reason - I actually know a few people who HAVE been using it since quite some time among them this famous dude:

https://github.com/voidlinux/void-packages/commits?author=ch...

And I know a few more ruby-folks who are still using archlinux but may consider switching. I may try to convince jhass for example ... ;) - although I do have to say, voidlinux needs a bit more polishing still.

They will surely manage.

Are you really reasoning in favour of some obscure program rather than a simple "ln -s"?

Dude, we have been using *nix since decades.

There is nothing wrong with keeping things simple - no need for systemd whatsoever.

yo people - you guys really need to handle slashes properly!

They are quite important for www-stuff you know.

"a majority of the OCSP requests we were receiving were prepended with a slash"

Everything is unsafe - one has to make sure that external data is converted into a sane format internally; and to never assume that external input can be safe!

Precisely.

"The Ruby community even has their own acronym for being nice to other developers: MINASWAN"

No, that is not true. That was coined, if I remember correctly, by the pickaxe.

Matz is nice, but how does this translate to any other bad suggestion out there? I don't understand that logic.

It's also not as if it is ... impossible to make suggestions to ruby core that are accepted?

Like hundreds other people manage? Why does the dude above fail?

Here is the issue tracker:

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby-trunk/issues?set_fi...

You'll see a lot of assignee's done to matz, nobu, koichi etc... I mean they don't have 50 arms each and infinite time so they have to prioritize on what they work.

"Some are xenophobic"

That is so totally rubbish.

Just go to the japanese bboy scene. They are not xenophobic AT ALL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Y75Rjl6UU

They are people like YOU AND ME. Assuming that there is a huge, insurmountable cultural difference is just c-r-a-p.

Or do you think that every japanese loves video games? Or loves ninjas and samurai? Or knows karate?

Also I would like you to name which library specifically causes this problem :)

Whenever I read it, people seem to make up contrived problems - and do not give any example.

I would like specific examples please where this interferes with your code.

So far it simply did not interfere with my own ruby code, and I have written really a lot over the 5 years here, including my own bigger "alternative" to gems. (I wanted to release it, but I was lazy and always felt it is easier to use my own idioms. The problem with this approach is that, while it really makes creating something super fast, I would either have to unbundle everything again so I can distribute it, or bundle everything. Both things have huge problems, because if i unbundle everything it will take quite some time to rewrite things really "cleanly" enough for _other_ people. For my personal needs it is totally fine. And if I would distribute things "bundled" together, which means I could release today, then people would simply complain that there are so many things "bundled" together they simply wont need.

Complaining people are annoying.

i know because I am one of them)

You can use ruby without gems. I think you confuse gems with "pure" ruby as such. I have seen horribly code in gems and I think the whole gems idea is the wrong solution. But I am in a minority here.

I also do not know why cpan is mentiond FIRST as perl's greatest assets. To me i think a language should easily provide the capabilities to the programmer without addons, AND I also think that there SHOULD BE ONLY ONE "CPAN" FOR ALL THE SCRIPTING LANGUAGES OUT THERE.

I find it totally silly that there are any distinctions at all.

But back to gems:

I for example am using Ruby since almost 5 years without gems. Others seem to like it that you can simply do "gem install rails" and thats it (unless the debian package manager starts to hate it again... which is btw another thing that sucks.)

I agree that there are people who are concerned with "namespace" pollution, but I simply think so many people are trying to overemphasize. The worst was when I talked to a C# hardcore guy. He basically claimed that being flexible like Ruby is ALWAYS bad (C# does not allow you to change core methods. You must subclass and change that new class then. This is not a smart solution, it simply binds and restricts the developer, and claims that this will be better in the long run. My question is - why not allow being flexible AT THE CHOOSING OF THE DEVELOPER IN QUESTION? The reason is simple. C# is a typical language that is developed from the top-down.

It would be so much better if creating good languages would be a lot easier, so noone has to cater to arrogant developers who try to impose their thinking pattern onto your brain.

This comment field is not very good, it killed my newlines! :(

I demand the pre tag or a "code" tag or something that allows us to add code nicely formatted :P

Looks contrived, because I dont know many ruby users who would write fun1 for a method. Why? Because in ruby there are methods. You dont find many people doing "fun" for a method - the intent clearly was a "function". But where are they? ;)

Anyway, here is the one that comes to my brain flow naturally. It seems python writers need () in order to feel happy, otherwise they think they get confused about things (hopefully they dont have a small brain):

  fun1 x

  fun1 x + y

  fun1 x + y.foo

  fun1 x + y.foo bar

What will happen in this perfectly valid Ruby code? Where do the parentheses belong? Do you know off the top of your head?

fun1(x) fun1(x + y) fun1(x + y.foo()) fun1(x + y.foo(bar))

Btw you omitted what x and y are. My first assumption is that these must be variables that allow the + method

It does not really make a lot of sense though, give the last example:

class Cat def initialize(name) @name = name end def foo(how = :h) case how when :h how = 'happily' when :u how = 'unhappily' end puts @name+' meows '+how+'.' end end

y = Cat.new 'Tom'

y.foo # "Tom meows happily." bar = :u y.foo bar # "Tom meows unhappily."

x = '"At the end of the day "

x + y.foo bar # "At the end of the day Tom meows unhappily."

etc.. I simply have no idea what fun1 should do. Maybe it will involve Jerry mouse and return a conditional story where it is explained why Tom the cat is unhappy.

Btw this is a really contrived example because I tried to model your stipulation of the above code into this. It really makes no sense at all to use variables without any real idea why one should use that.

Why do people WANT to be complex when simplicity is so much more elegant?

One thing I dont understand is

print word

where does "word" come from?

Anyway, this setup is in no way different to ruby's super

super("foo") super("bar")

I really fail to see the point here. What is different? I simply do not see what the python example shows "a bit more clearly" here. I dont even get where "word" comes from.

Besides, "monkeypatching" is a deragotary term invented by pythonistas who do not understand Ruby or think that by adding complexity you can feel "meta" programming so clearly. In my opinion the metaprogramming demanding people are wanking hippos that continually feel a need to add needless and useless complexity on top of problems and in situations where there simply should not be any of that.

Both ruby and python are way to complicated. Can you believe this? At the same time, both are a LOT more elegant than languages like perl or php. Perl 6 still has not managed to get rid of the useless ; at line ends. They managed to eliminate () around if's.

Wow. I am soooo impressed. In 100 more years Perl 7 will be THE best language arrr!!!

But it is a shame that there are not more good languagesl ike ruby or python, because in fact there simply are not that many good languages existing anyway. It takes so much effort to grow a language....

And yes - both ruby and python are very good languages. The fact that there are idiots using the language who have a loud mouth badmouthing either of these two decent languages is annoying, but one can not do much about it.

For everyone else I recommend reading the "why it does not matter" blog. It really summarizes a lot of why ruby and python fill a very similar ecosystem, behaving like rivals who continually try to point out how incredibly stupid the other language is.

Grow up. Use what you prefer, and end this stupid war.

No it is not. You dodged the question again, by throwing a hardly related blog of someone else at it.

How many people will use yield _AND_ self.send in the same method please?! That seems like an awfully complicated and contrived example. Who the heck does this?

"the fact that they necessitate a special form (yield) and cannot be bound to a variable, and are not passed as standard function parameters just makes them inconsistent and gross."

Which brings us to another point - when exactly do you actually need them? I have for every 1000 lines of ruby code maybe one line of "yield" code, and this is only to further extend classes for flexibility. Other languages dont allow you to choose what you want to have, ruby does.

You simply have to make decisions when to use what.

For me it is simplicity, elegance and beauty. These are my biggest design criterias.