Every one had already been launched.
Every one had already been launched.
Alternatively, instead of reading a Phoronix article that has a couple of short snippets from a much longer blog post, you can read the original blog post yourself to see the full context.
Edit: Also, it is worth noting that the author of the original blog post had previously written another relatively recent post criticizing the way in which Wayland was developed, so it's not like they are refusing to see its problems.
Wait... I just noticed this:
[XHTML] never took off on the web, in part because in a website context so much HTML is generated by templates and libraries that it’s all too easy to introduce a syntax error somewhere along the line; and unlike HTML, where a syntax error would still render something, the tiniest syntax error in XHTML means the whole thing gets thrown out by the browser and you get the Yellow Screen of Death.
This confuses me; don't you want to make sure you are always generating a syntactically valid document, rather than hoping that the browser will make something suitable up to work around your mistake?
I appreciate this sentiment a great deal in general, but sometimes it is difficult to uphold when I have to regularly deal with "time vampires" who not only require that I explain the same thing to them over and over again beyond reason but who also show no willingness or ability to actually learn the thing that I am explaining to them; at some point I just run out of patience and start ignoring them to the extent that I am able.
This news story is literally about the FTC actively suing for injunctive relief; the "complaint" in question is actually a formal legal letter addressed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court.
Edit: fixed typo
Either way, it’s an awesome language, happily been using it for decades now
Mind taking a moment to share why you like it? I am not very familiar with it.
That's a little bit like saying, "I don't understand why people continue to complain about the landmine sitting right there on the ground. We've painted it red so you can easily walk around it, so how has the problem not been solved?"
Quoth the article:
As spotted by iMore, this indemnification stems from how Epic Games breached the developer agreement it had with Apple when it tried offering its own alternative payment system in August 2020.
In short: Epic Games pissed off the court when it consciously chose to violate the terms of its its contract with Apple before filing the lawsuit, rather than first filing the lawsuit and waiting for it to conclude. The court is taking the unusual step of billing Epic Games for Apple's legal expenses precisely to disincentivize this kind of behavior in the future.
A truly fantastic update for our times!
Sometimes this can help, but lately I've been running into the opposite problem where people have been following this advice to such a degree that one cannot ever figure out what is going on without having to constantly jump around to find the actual code involved in doing something.
If you are going to compare the United States to other political entities, I think that the better thing to compare it to is the European Union rather than other countries, because like the EU the US was formed from the union of sovereign member states and that is why it is designed the way that it is (for better or worse).
Given that, I have an honest question asked out of ignorance: Does the EU have more power over its member states than the United States does? (I am not super-familiar with it, so the answer may very well be yes.)
In fairness, sometimes it is useful to get hands on experience with a system before you dig into its fundamentals so that you have a reference point that helps you absorb the information.
Q: Why the name "Fleece"?
A: It's a reference to the mythical Golden Fleece, the treasure sought by Jason [emphasis mine] and the Argonauts.
I see what you did there...
"This isn't us encouraging you to gamble-it is us asking you to think about how bad you would feel years from now if you learned that you could have made a ton of money if you had only placed a bet right now! It's completely different!"
Thanks, it's actually kind of nice to hear someone who likes using PHP explaining in detail why they like it.
In fairness, the actual title of the article is "What's Your Go-To Java Stack [emphasis mine]".
Easy: recognizing bird calls on my phone.
Wow, when I went to bed yesterday it was only December 28, but now it is somehow already April 1!
Yeah but performance has way more to do with architecture than it does code readability.
Indeed, I am a bit notorious at work for speeding C++ code up by rewriting it in Python, and I have been able to do this not because my Python code is particularly fast but because the architecture of the C++ code was such a complicated and inefficient mess that it actually managed to be slower than Python.
The root of the problem is that you think of momentum as being defined to be the product of something's mass and its velocity, but this is actually only an approximation that just so happens to work extremely well at our everyday scales; the actual definition of momentum is the spatial frequency of the wave function (which is like a special kind of distribution). Thus, because photons can have a spatial frequency, it follows simply that they therefore can have momentum.
Something else that likely contributes to your confusion is that you probably think that where something is and how fast it is going are two completely independent things, but again this is actually only an approximation; in actuality there is only one thing, the wave function, which is essentially overloaded to contain information both about position and momentum. Because you cannot pack two independent pieces of information into a single degree of freedom, it is not possible for position and momentum to be perfectly well defined at the same time, which is where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes from.
Yes, of course they have complained to the courts. That’s not the point.
That is moving the goalposts. In your other comment, you said, "What is the FTC going to do about it? Most likely do nothing, or issue a stern warning." I have demonstrated that they are doing neither of these things but instead are going through the courts to get injunctive relief.
This simply will go nowhere, or do you expect that the court will somehow separate Activision out of Microsofts hands again to fix this?
If the appellate court decides that the lower court erred in its reasoning, then there is no reason why it could not issue such an order. It is not like this would be the first time that the government broke up a company.
Or punish the managers at Microsoft and make them withdraw the execution plan to remove redundant jobs?
There is no reason why the court could not issue an injunction preventing it from executing this plan until the proceeding concludes.
At the end of it, Microsoft will eventually pay a small, symbolic sum which they consider “cost of conducting business”. Nothing more.
If the FTC considered this to be a sufficient remedy then they probably would have settled with Microsoft by now rather than taking this to the courts.
Thank you, I came to this comment section hoping someone would explain what exactly the basis in law was for this.
The explanation given to you makes it sound like == was deliberately designed to be a more convenient version of ===, but what actually happened was that == used to be the only equality operator in JavaScript, which meant that if you didn't want it's auto-coercing behavior then you needed to go out of your way to add additional type checks yourself. Because this was obviously a tremendously inconvenient state of affairs, the === operator was introduced later so that you could test for equality without having to worry about JavaScript doing something clever underneath the hood that you weren't expecting.
The resolution preferred by God himself.
That approach makes a lot of sense for amateur web sites, but less sense for professional web sites.
I completely agree with that assessment, but what is weird to me is that most people use frameworks so they don't actually touch any of the markup themselves.
That is conceptually how dynamic programming works, but in practice the way you build the cache is from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It's a bit like how you can implement computation of the Fibonacci sequence in a top-down manner using a recursive function with caching, but it is a lot more efficient to instead build it in a bottom-up manner.
I can understand this view for early backers (I’m one of them) but what about people who decided to drop money on the game in the last 2 or even 5 years? Were they also scammed despite hundreds of articles about delays, issues and thousands of people yelling about a scam every time SC is mentioned?
Maybe, maybe not, but is entirely possible to be scammed while also being in a position where you should have known better; the two are not mutually incompatible.
Yeah, which is why I thought that the original ending to Return of the Jedi, which was just a local party with the Ewoks, was much better than the immediate galaxy wide celebration that Lucas insisted on adding in the re-release.
Because some of us are bitter at the trees for generating so much pollen at this time of year and want revenge.
Except for denying a state equal representation on the Senate without its consent; the Constitution explicitlyforbids that.
If it were really so easy to bypass that restriction, then what was the point of putting that sentence in in the first place?
The way I structure my commits, it is usually (but not always) easier and more reliable for me to replay my commits one at a time on top of the main branch and see how each relatively small change needs to be adapted in isolation--running the full test suite at each step to verify that my changes were correct--than to be presented with a slew of changes all at once that result from marrying all of my changes with all of the changes made to the main branch at once. So I generally start by attempting a rebase and fall back to a merge if that ends up creating more problems than it solves.
Yeah, I miss living in Australia where you didn't have your own waiter but on the other hand that meant that it wasn't rude to flag down any of the wait staff if you need anything rather than being restricted to having to go through a single person.
Yes. My rule of thumb is that generally rebasing is the better approach, in part because if your commit history is relatively clean then it is easier to merge in changes one commit at a time than all at once. However, sometimes so much has changed that replaying your commits puts you in the position of having to solve so many problems that it is more trouble than it is worth, in which case you should feel no qualms about aborting the rebase (git rebase --abort) and using a merge instead.
Because it looks like that functionality uses special compiler functionality only available on GCC and clang?
No, if anything the way you can tell you are in a dream is because the top spins forever and never starts wobbling; the way he got his wife to eventually concede that she was in a dream was by setting the top in a perpetual spin so that she stumbled upon it still spinning.
The significance of the ending is not that he is still in a dream but that he is so content with the situation that he stops caring whether he is in a dream or not. (Actually, in fairness that is not quite true either; I've heard that basically the ending is more Nolan trolling the audience than anything of narrative significance.)
Sure, but it is also a very gratuitous and pointless design constraint.
The founding fathers did not believe in universal suffrage; at the time only people who owned land could vote--to say nothing of even less privileged groups than that--and they were fine with that policy, in part because these were considered to be the people with the most skin in the game.
Huh; I don't believe that it is really him.
If this is the real Slim Shady, would you please stand up?