whyonearth

You have to get clever when searching CL. Plenty of places that allow cats don't click the "Cats OK" box. Instead of using that search filter, include the terms -"no cats" -"no pets". In your case, -"no couples". My CL searches to filter the fake 1BRs get pretty crazy (-roommate -"room for rent" -jr -junior -studio, etc...) but their search engine handles complex queries well.

I don't think there's much precedent, it's a complex emerging legal question: https://www.wweek.com/cannabis/2016/10/04/why-hemp-and-marij...

Or sued.

> The cornerstone of JavaScript is the function.

JavaScript is specified in terms of objects, has richer facilities for dealing with objects than functions, functions are objects but not vice-versa. So, objects are the cornerstone. Callers are free to ignore a function's arity even.

When thinking about cultural differences, it's not sensible (let alone tactful) to jump to "absolutely twisted and unhealthy."

I'm having trouble relating to parent's comment too. Are they only shopping at airport bookstores?

I think it's a bit contradictory to choose an insecure OS because a more secure one doesn't support a nice-to-have piece of security hardware. That aside, I'd be interested in the specifics of the "too many problems" that you anticipate on supported hardware (which includes most configurations of the XPS and Precision).

Are you saying Linux won't work out-of-the-box on an XPS 15? Because Dell literally sells those pre-loaded with Ubuntu, even saves you $100.

Let's not be so dramatic, nowhere near 40% of Americans want either of those things. I'd guess 70% want the status quo with a nudge to the left or right, 20% don't give a shit, and 10% represent the extremes (on the US political spectrum) that you mentioned.

Arbitrarily? This judge ruled on a case brought to his court.

Only if your language supports dependent types.

I certainly hope that isn't the intent, because there are other ways to generate network requests (new Image() and fetch(), for example). Sandboxing JS eval is a very hard problem and even Angular 1's "bulletproof" sandboxed template engine was repeatedly owned. I'd be wary of XSS on any site like this one.

I get that you're in China and that everything's relative, but we are comparing SCMP to other globally respected mainstream news sources, and with that reference point it tends towards Chinese interests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Morning_Post#Contr...

Surely the markets took a hit today because the world's financial centers have all been duped by such propaganda. Look, even China-friendly South China Morning Post is in on the con, despicable. https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2178089/c...

IPFS is a protocol, I don't think one can ascribe 30+ second latency to language choice.

The thread makes me want to quit the industry. One person disagrees and gets "I vote for this statement to be nominated for Worst Sentiment of 2018", while the gist-er is congratulated with "instant classic" and "you're my hero." The JS cargo-culting insanity is becoming unbearable and dissenters are mocked as noobs.

I think you're being somewhat defensive of what appears to be a prototype, just offering the feedback you requested.

1. What I mean is that <span>@code</span> becomes <span>data-af-click</span>.

2. Where? Not seeing them.

3. You're mistaken about event handler cleanup: https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-childnode-remove

6. My point here is that relying on strings is brittle. HTML builders, declarative APIs like JSX/React.createElement, and template-based approaches (where the template is a DOM node) are more robust.

Feedback:

1. Parser prohibits literal "@click", there is no escape mechanism.

2. Only click, what about other DOM events?

3. Leaking: Event listeners not removed in destructor (your clean() function?)

4. No XSS protection, ow.

5. No tests, might want some.

6. Based on innerHTML assignment with nothing to guarantee valid HTML.

7. No error handling.