The owner of Twitter/X is about to be in the president’s cabinet. And the owner of Meta is clearly cozying up to the incoming administration with their new “anti-woke” policies.
source? DOGE is not a real department and so he's not part of the cabinet.
rich people affecting government officials is as old as time, nothing new. what has never been true in the US is the ability for the gov to legally compel X/Meta to do their bidding, which is the whole issue with TikTok.
I poured soup into a glass bowl that contained many shards from a chipped rim that I failed to notice. I had consumed nearly the entire bowl when I bit into the largest shard.
I strained the remaining soup for glass, found more shards, but many were unaccounted for. Only possibility left was that I had slurped them down
If you like this sort of thing, I highly recommend checking out C. Allen’s work. The visuals and music are both really impressive, in my opinion the best out there: https://youtu.be/OP7sTQQ0Blw
I’ve had a lot of trouble with their support recently as well. A domain I was trying to renew just…wouldn’t. The ticket I opened went unanswered for nearly a month. What finally got them to look at it was posting on their forums with a ticket ID. Even still, they just quietly renewed the domain without a response or confirmation or anything so it’s technically still open…
I could be misremembering, but I think I remember Teslas having a feature that would apply slight torque to the motors when braking on hills to prevent the car from rolling backwards when switching from brakes to the accelerator.
I wonder if this was a malfunction of the system that detects the car being on a slope which caused it to accelerate forward despite the brake being pressed?
I think the snake oil claim is in regard to VPN companies marketing themselves as a security product. The security benefits that these companies claim in their ads are dubious but of course there’s other benefits to them, they just can’t advertise that they can be used for these things.
The problem is people who aren’t aware of this see these ads and think that they actually do prevent hackers from stealing their information.
> I think the snake oil claim is in regard to VPN companies marketing themselves as a security product
Considering that confidentiality is a vital component of overall security, it's not necessarily unreasonable to describe a VPN as a security product. Of course, it's not the panacea some companies claim; nobody's "surfing the web in full security and privacy" with just a VPN service.
We already have really good client-server confidentiality (and integrity) assurances from the wide adoption of TLS/HTTPS. Wrapping that in a VPN doesn't buy you all that much additional security. Maybe a little bit of DNS privacy and being able to mask your IP address on torrents, but that's all that comes to mind.
That argument only makes sense if people don't really understand what a VPN is or what it is actually for. They're somewhat of an expensive and complex thing that usually noticeably slows down your internet connection... I doubt many people are buying them because they think it protects them from identity theft or something. I haven't seen an ad on the internet in a decade (thanks uBlock) - so I'm not sure if there's some ubiquitous misleading ads I'm missing.
Similar to cryptocurrency in this respect. People would often tout nebulous benefits for hypothetical legitimate use cases, when in reality they were only ever really good at ponzi schemes and conducting illicit transactions.
I think they may be referring to if someone accidentally changes the ordering, either by inserting a new variant between two existing ones or by shuffling the order of the existing variants the value can change and cause problems.
Yes, but even with that interpretation, they claimed something much stronger:
> The encoded value can change any time you re-compile your program
Any value (not just enums) can change any time you re-compile your program, if some programmer goes in and messes it up.
The real, much softer criticism would be that Go requires its programmer's to understand the potential consequences of inserting or shuffling enum values (where iota is involved). It's a much weaker case against iota than what they stated.
Ok, fair, yes what I meant is really that 'iota' is capable of introducing action-at-a-distance, albeit in uncommon situations, because new, preceding iota declarations within a const block change the values of subsequent iotas. This wouldn't happen every time you re-compile your program; I meant that more as a shorthand for "potentially can happen when your program changes"; and I can understand why that shorthand is confusing, because a much more poorly designed implementation of iota could actually, conceivably, change the iota values on every re-compile (in much the same way Go randomizes map iteration order, for example); and this is not what Go does.
1.1k isn't bad for a project with ~33 million weekly downloads[1], imo. Yes, I know that's not necessarily a good metric, but it's ~10 million more than React[2] which also has a similar number of open issues[3].
A code formatter has no business having 1100 open issues (5k closed). It is not rocket science.
In my experience, the number of open issues not only correlates with popularity, but how crappy the language is. Javascript projects, with its myriad of dependencies and attracting junior, inexperienced devs, tend to accumulate a great number of bugs.
For reference, curl has 24 open issues (4k closed), it is a couple orders of magnitude more complex AND more used than prettier.
If this feature were added, I’d see very little need to use CSS preprocessors - at least for me. We already have variables, nesting, and color functions. Throw in mixins and user defined functions and that pretty much covers 90% of what I’d usually do in Sass.
Maybe you still use PostCSS for some auto prefixing/ backwards compat stuff but the need for that should go away as the usage numbers for unsupported browsers go down.
I've been obsessed with the US Chemical Safety Board videos on YouTube that describe in great detail the events that lead up to industrial accidents. One of the common themes I've seen among them is that there's usually some sort of warning sign or near miss that goes ignored by the people responsible for them since they don't cause any major damage. Then a few days or months later that system fails in an entirely predictable way with catastrophic consequences. A good example of this is the fatal phosgene gas release at a DuPont chemical plant[1].
It is worth keeping in mind that you don't see the other side of the equation in these reports: how many warning signs and near misses that didn't result in a major accident. Part of that is just the odds, and why people and organisations can become complacent to them, and part of it is that while most of them may be addressed, some can still slip through the cracks.
