Array.prototype.slice.call(htmlCollection);
Which has been the canonical way to cast them. But it will still throw on null or undefined.1,246 karma · joined December 22, 2014
Array.prototype.slice.call(htmlCollection);
Which has been the canonical way to cast them. But it will still throw on null or undefined.It works on `arguments`, it works on strings (iterating through characters), it works on objects (passing the key as the iteratee's second parameter in place of an index value), it works on HTMLCollection pseudo-arrays. It also doesn't throw on null or undefined.
When mixing Number and BigInt, abstract equality (==) works fine, but strict equality (===) is always false, since they are two different primitive types.
Most bitwise operators are allowed, so long as all operands are the same type (Number or BigInt). The only exception is zero-fill right shift (>>>) since that doesn't make any sense with respect to BigInts.
From my console: (node 10 with --harmony-bigint)
> 1n == 1
true
> 1n === 1
false
> 12345n >> 1
TypeError: Cannot mix BigInt and other types, use explicit conversions
> 12345n >> 1n
6172n
> 12345n >>> 1n
TypeError: BigInts have no unsigned right shift, use >> instead[1] https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/2018Q1_alphabet_earnings_releas...
On a modern Android phone, I can't see all of the article text, with an undetermined amount being cut off at the bottom. Swipe back doesn't work if you don't start the swipe from the center of the page (which is unnatural and not the same for swiping forward). There are no obvious affordances to indicate that tapping on the left brings me back. And an un-dismissible subscription dialog appears, obscuring almost all remaining text.
I'm just assuming that it renders perfectly for iPhones. Serious question: is testing for Android just not done?
Are there other "rules" like this, regarding numerical analysis? I understand this, but I've never thought of articulating it like that.
Honest question: Is everything below the floor pan designed and built by Panasonic?
> Building a winning portfolio and focusing on products and markets where Ford can win. For example, by 2020, almost 90 percent of the Ford portfolio in North America will be trucks, utilities and commercial vehicles. Given declining consumer demand and product profitability, the company will not invest in next generations of traditional Ford sedans for North America. Over the next few years, the Ford car portfolio in North America will transition to two vehicles – the best-selling Mustang and the all-new Focus Active crossover coming out next year. The company is also exploring new “white space” vehicle silhouettes that combine the best attributes of cars and utilities, such as higher ride height, space and versatility.
[1] https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America...
EDIT: The press release from which all this interest is coming may only refer to Ford North America's development goals. Ford Europe is almost a different company and is responsible for most (all?) of the Focus and Fiesta's development. Perhaps Ford NA will stop bringing new sedans/coupes to market (excepting Mustang and Active) and simply import the smaller vehicles.
">$100MM yearly" is, let's say, $8.5MM monthly.
">10,000 customers" is <15,000 (or they would have used that), so maybe 11,000 to 13,000.
That's around $650-$750 per customer per month.
"Hundreds of thousands of active users" means maybe 250,000-400,000.
That's 20-35 users per customer, when split between 11,000-13,000 customers.
That comes out to $21-$34 per user per customer per month, average (you can see pricing tiers here: https://www.pagerduty.com/pricing/).
(I don't know if they make money off contracts not available on their pricing page.)
Viewing the header illustration for more than a few seconds crashes my iPad Safari tab. Scrolling until it is off the viewport prevents this.
EDIT: Dev Tools reports 74.8 MB transferred with an ad blocker. The illustration is a single 69.2 MB gif.
EDIT: 101 MB in total when you scroll to the bottom. Three more gifs: 18.1 MB, 7.1 MB, 4.7 MB.
How does the allowance of comment/submission deletion affect HN being perceived as a "permanent record"? I've always found this aspect of HN to be important to me.
If comments can be deleted selectively, what effect does that have on the permanent record? How many users would be tempted to write something they don't want recorded permanently simply to judge responses before they delete the comment later? (As opposed to requiring that all comments for a user be deleted together, which would likely discourage deletion to remove specific comments.)
Would this give rise to third-party "comment recovery" services that scrape something like archive.org (assuming it is less affected by the GDPR) or maintain their own records to piece together comment threads with deleted comments? Similar to services that archive tweets that might get deleted.
That doesn't sound right. According to the (better) article from Bloomberg [1], "Saudi Arabia’s electricity generation capacity ... stood at 77 gigawatts in 2016", which that article points out is a third of this new project's.
I don't work in electrical production, but I don't think this capacity will work for 10% of the world. Wikipedia [2] agrees with your assessment of ~2300GW for worldwide average production; but I think the problem is how an average production number is calculated as compared with quoted output numbers for a given installation.
EDIT: Hmm, if Saudi Arabia produces ~3.3% of the world's electricity currently, then maybe this does represent enough for a substantial percentage of the world's population, assuming the production and capacity numbers are comparable. (Deriving 3.3% from 77GW of 2311GW, which I recognize come from different years.) Anyone who knows more about this care to weigh in?
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-28/saudi-ara...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Product...
Perhaps removing "hacking" or "controversy" from the title to make room for "wrong" would preserve the author's original intent without editorializing.
EDIT: Removing either of those would also likely leave room to re-include "the" before "CA", as is in the original, in addition to "wrong".
It's also near a lot of new construction (like most of DC) geared mostly towards young, rich professionals (like most of new DC).
[1] The intersection was changed a few years ago from insanely dangerous to safe but very indirect when trying to make certain transitions.
DC Police began installing "Rumbler" systems in police cars ten years ago, partly to help the deaf population identify when police cars were present. [1]
I could imagine a situation where someone on the city/police council saw the LRAD devices as potentially useful in the event of a largely-deaf protest, as happened in 2006.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10...
I would rather not be trapped in an echo chamber, even if it is one of my own making (especially if it is one of my own making).
Note, "dead" comments are usually dead for reasons that have nothing to do with the same controversies. Turning off "dead" comments is, at least to me, a very different thing than turning off political submissions.
I see flags, especially when they are abused, as indicators that having a high-quality discussion is going to be next to impossible. If people are going to use one tool (flags) poorly, it's likely they will use a more powerful tool (comments) poorly.
I appreciate that some people feel that the "loss" of some submissions due to automatic flamewar detection algorithms or user flagging is a problem, but I, for one, appreciate that the discussions that remain on the front page (for a long time) have a reasonable guarantee of being high quality.
Relatedly, it may also have an effect on the non-controversial submissions by establishing that flamewars will not remain in high positions for long. (I realize that's a bit of a "broken windows theory".)