Ever since Elon became the world's richest man people like this have showed up. I don't know if they have been misinformed or if they just want to say negative things about billionaires. But the early history of SpaceX is very well documented in the book liftoff if anyone wants to know the truth.
IIRC the main reason indexeddb does not use promises is because promises are required to reject/resolve asynchronously [1]. Indexeddb requires that you manipulate the object stores in a synchronous way from it's event handlers, so it can terminate the transaction after running the event handlers synchronously. It can't do this with promises that will run their resolve handler at best in the next microtask.
It's been a while since I looked into this, but I remember this being my conclusion.
The 2.0 spec is just a bunch of minor changes. Promises will be a big change - although I would argue it's way more important than all this other stuff combined.
(I'm not an admin. You probably want to email HN because they won't see the question otherwise.)
In the past HN had a fairly strict dupe-detection filter.
That meant that a lot of good stories that didn't get attention on the first posting didn't get reposted.
Currently the dupe-detection is much weaker than it used to be. A story that didn't get much attention on the first post can be reposted easily now.
HN tried an experiment where they'd email people and ask them to repost submissions, and give those reposts a small bump. That was a lot of work, so they only do that for "Show HNs". Now they do something like an auto-repost which resets the timestamp.
This means that sometimes you'll post something, and it won't get much attention, and a few hours later someone else will post the same thing and it'll get upvotes.
This isn't going to stay like it is. They're working on a better system.
>> Invited reposts are mostly deprecated now in favor of re-ups [1], but when it looks like the submitter might also be the author (as e.g. with Show HNs), we still send them. It's nice for an author to know that their post may still get discussed, and it's good for HN when an author jumps into the thread.
I've been working on a virtual table (not for React, but KnockoutJS) that's designed around needed to virtual scroll over a large number of columns (as well as rows). Really in-progress code at the moment, but getting there...
You can edit that on JsBin and easily increase the columns to 5-10,000. You may want to look at [editableCell](https://github.com/gnab/editableCell) for some of the keyboard shortcuts.
The whole premise is that "like produces like", which of course is nonsense. Dumb people have brilliant kids, ugly people produce beautiful children, and so on and so forth.
3. However - you are right in one respect. There is usually a 'pull to the mean'. That means that children of exceptional people tend to be closer to the average, thus they are not as gifted as the exceptional parent.
Would an individual have been chosen for sterilization if:
1) He was born with a markedly pointy head, which caused much consternation to his parents and relatives.
2) Was developmentally backward. Notably, he failed to acquire language skills for a significant period during his early childhood.
3) He was educationally subnormal, showing signs of what would now be diagnosed as ADHD,and drugged into a stupor.
4) Was bone lazy. I believe that 'schweinehunde' was the informal term used at the time for this condition.
5) Was disobedient and rebellious, or one of those 'malcontents' that perennially threaten to upset the applecart of society (the term 'hooligan' enjoyed a brief vogue for describing this condition).
6) Was Jewish. The eugenics movement designated Jews for mass sterilization, along with Blacks, Poles and the 'bloody Irish' (but then again, these were the same dolts who thought that sterilizing homosexuals would somehow serve to 'keep the race pure').
Albert Einstein was a prime candidate for this preemptive culling.
If anything, Jews (or more precisely Ashkenazi) are a poster child for eugenics - since really that's what they went through in the middle ages, which is used to explain their enormous achievement (see http://www.economist.com/node/4032638)
