On the other hand, job security?
228 karma · joined April 26, 2016
On the other hand, job security?
I guess the question is whether you can have preconditions at all on blanket licenses?
For example, if I say "anyone who sends me, by registered mail, a check for 50 EUR will be granted a license", and someone just uses my code without even attempting to send the check, is that copyright violation or contractual violation? It seems to me that would be a copyright violation, or else all copyright violations are just latent contract violations, in their most absurd extents ("I didn't sign the licensing contract they offered, but because they offered one at all, it's a contractual violation" seems to be a particularly weak defense).
https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-...
Basically, Israel is doing quite well even still. Yes, there's a reduction in efficacy, and yes there's breakthrough infections, but your risk of serious outcomes is still reduced by ~80%+, even in older populations _when correctly compared to unvaccinated older populations_.
Not as a vaccine, but as a drug.
Wikipedia disagrees with you in the opening paragraph about strong and weak typing: it's contentious. For all practical purposes that I can think of, TypeScript creates a strongly typed environment.
The problem comes when you're interacting with non-typed (or, worse, incorrectly-manually-typed) libraries, or misuse `any`. Honestly, I'd be interested to see a pure TypeScript program and where weak typing comes in. There are definitely a couple of language escapes (again, `JSON.parse`, previously `fn.bind`), but these are going away as TS gains better inference and type-propagation logic.
JavaScript is strongly typed in the sense that every value has a well-defined type. It's weak in the sense that it has implicit conversion between types in a lot of cases, but it's not as though those conversions don't follow particular rules if you know the types.
TypeScript gives you accurate static typing on top of that, so long as you don't use `any` as an escape. Arguably, `JSON.parse` returning `any` is the 1-million dollar mistake of TypeScript, because it leads a lot of people to think that they get automatic runtime typechecking for free, which they obviously don't, which leads to comments about how bad/slippery TypeScript is stemming from their misunderstanding.
In my experience, you only need to work around typings in TypeScript when you're dealing with some absurdly designed API that only made sense in the super-flexible world of olden-days JavaScript, or perhaps if you're doing some meta-programming, generating class definitions on the fly or such.
For example:
set -e
var="$( false )"
if [ $? -eq 0 ] ; then
echo Ok: "$var"
else
echo Not ok: $?
fi
If you run this program, neither "Ok" or "Not ok" will be echoed, because the program will exit with an error on the `var=` line. (Not to mention the $? on the not-ok line won't work because it will be the exit code of the `[` test command in the conditional, not the exit code of the captured subshell command).Instead the following will work:
set -e
if var="$( false )" ; then
echo Ok: "$var"
else
echo Not ok: $?
fi
Note that this will _not_ work: if ! var="$( false )"; then
echo Not ok: $?
fi
Your output will be "Not ok: 0". This is because negation impacts the exit code of the previous command.P(getting infected per touch) = 1/10000 = .0001
P(not getting infected per touch) = 1 - P(getting infected per touch) = .9999
P(not getting infected after 100 touches) = P(not getting infected per touch) ^ 100 = .9999 ^ 100 =~ .99
P(getting infected after 100 touches) = 1 - P(not getting infected after 100 touches) =~ .01 = 1%
Or, in other words:
1 - ((1 - .0001) ^ 100) =~ .01 = 1% chance of infection
By the same logic, your second estimation is a bit off:
1/5000 = .0002
1 - ((1 - .0002) ^ 100) =~ .02 = 2% chance of infection
That's a far cry off 40%.
To think about it another way, if the chance to get infected per touch is 1/10, and you touch a surface 20 times, is your chance of infection 200%? No, that doesn't make sense. It's 1 - ((1 - 1/10) ^ 20) =~ 87.8%.
That's the problem with statistics -- "everyone can do the math", but it's pretty easy to mix it up and reach the wrong conclusions and spread misinformation.
Free speech platform so long as it doesn't step on any in-group toes.
const userPromise = fetchUser(id)
const itemPromise = fetchItem(itemId)
// Do stuff, maybe even more async stuff
const item = await itemPromise
const user = await userPromise
Since those promises haven't been awaited until later in the code, they could throw and result in an unhandledRejection, which would be pretty bad. Promise.all is much safer since it instantly awaits both promises.So in contrast to the opening line of the article, CSS is not amazing: people's talent for threading camels through the eyes of needles is amazing. Props to this guy for this. May I never have to recreate it.
Anyway, using tmux for selection in vim is a bad idea. You can give vim mouse support by `set mouse=a`, which will prevent tmux from capturing selection and scrollback control if you like. Achieving parity between vim, system, and tmux clipboard (and for bonus points, across a network) is left as a "fun" exercise.
If you drink the koolaid AND you get really lucky, you get to have a profitable business that changes the world for the better. For most, it's actually a job like anything else, just with the added expectation of utter devotion and unwavering belief.
I think her point is that despite the perks, she's just "shoveling it into her body", all of it, and can't quite get over the uncanniness of it all.
Also, I thought Facebook at first too, and thought it was a bit strong, then realized she was talking about LinkedIn.