I use it almost exclusively to help me approach novel problems, or at least problem spaces that I am severely lacking expertise in. It’s pretty incredible for helping me leverage my extant programming knowledge to accomplish things that I couldn’t before due to being blocked by research.
I’ve also used it quite a lot for advice as I was learning project management and moving away from individual contributions.
So I think as a consultant it has value, though I think “world class” might be a bit hyperbolic, since I still need to validate its output.
> I use it almost exclusively to help me approach novel problems, or at least problem spaces that I am severely lacking expertise in. It’s pretty incredible for helping me leverage my extant programming knowledge to accomplish things that I couldn’t before due to being blocked by research.
Can you expand on this? This is what I'd like to use it for, but I don't ever have any experience remotely close to helpful. The typical response is just something like "that's complicated but here's some gibberish that tries to show a simple example but is still wrong in ways it's not useful at all".
But the site remains unnamed. To prove, why not let others test the theory. Tell us the Wordpress site.
IME, Wordpress sites do not require a user agent header. Contrast, for example, with Squarespace sites which do require a user agent header.
IME, if send a user agent header with a particular value, then some sites will block, depending on the value. Whereas if _do not send_ a user agent header, then almost all sites will accept.
The so-called "developers" who publish code and commentary about "scraping" almost always include a user agent header. Usually they use fake values. They try to guess the "correct" values to send.
Im not referring to sending fake values. Im referring to not sending the header at all. No "spoofing" is involved. This works for me, for decades, across thousands of websites.
This really doesn’t change anything about the statement. Peter Thiel had nothing to do with the incident, and utilized it to get them shutdown via the courts. Whether or not it was legal at the time is not relevant to Thiels actions, which were not born from a sense of justice but from a desire for vindication.
yeah, I think it makes for a pretty interesting and grey area. Presumably it is in the interest of society to enforce the laws we have on the books, or we wouldn't have them. Presumably we would want justice for Hogan.
Im not sure it needs an analogy, but It seems a bit like reporting your neighbor for pouring oil down the storm drain after they piss you off.
jstarfish's point is, "Know when to back the fuck down, or be invincible."
And since none of us are Superman, you better know when to back down if you want to keep breathing. That isn't hyperbolic advice - you can apply it as low as a street fight to as high as a war between two superpowers.
You may not like it. You may not agree with it. You may not want it to be true. But if there's one thing I've noticed here on Hacker News, which I would have thought so-called "smart" people could figure out, it's that Might Makes Right. We still live under the Law of the Jungle. We just think we don't because we've piled up load after load of bullshit on top of it to obfuscate that fact because we don't like what it says about it.
Don't believe that?
Stop paying your taxes. You'll eventually be fined. Keep on not paying them them. You'll eventually have government officials at your door. Resist them. You'll be forcibly taken. Resist by shooting dead every single one that tries to take you. You'll eventually be met with overwhelming resistance. And the reason for that is simple. The State must be the supreme authority which rules over all citizens and there can be no exceptions. It's no different than a mob boss or a pirate captain. None at all. Zero. Might. Makes. Right. The best we can hope for is a philosopher king - or in the context of Western civilization, an enlightened governing body that attempts to balance all things towards the flourishing of mankind. We're still a long ways away, but we're trying.
> It's no different than a mob boss or a pirate captain
This seems like a gross oversimplification in the years after a mob boss who was also the duly-elected Commander-in-Chief of the United States tried to take over the US government and have himself instated President against the will of the electorate and failed. Is the argument "well, he just didn't have enough might?" Because that seems very circular.
This suggests the story is more complicated than "Might makes right" (I'd suggest that 'might makes right' may actually be a retroactive justification for disruption of status quos; 'they must have been strong enough to win because they won' may be correlation without causation, or perhaps 'strength' and 'victory' are synonymous, so 'might makes right' collapses into a useless tautology).
MLK being shot is entirely irrelevant. His mission succeeded, and because blacks knew when to quit, the Civil Rights Act still stands. Nobody repealed it a generation later.
The gays get it. How often do you hear about gay-anything in the news anymore besides the occasional wedding cake drama? They wanted equality. They got it. Nobody's challenging DOMA. Nobody's trying to outlaw sodomy.
Women have been so aggressive in their politicking and rhetoric they've made themselves a threat to the male establishment. How the fuck did they lose the right to abortion? Like a bitter ex-spouse, they weaponized the offspring of Men--the Internet--against the patriarchy. Can't have that. The establishment turned their own biology against them, and now they're being muted too.
The trannies should learn from the blacks and gays before it's too late. After women, they're next.
> Nobody's challenging DOMA. Nobody's trying to outlaw sodomy.
I assume you meant that the other way: DOMA was the law that blocked gay marriage, which the SCOTUS overturned. You meant "Nobody's trying to reinstitute DOMA."
And, yes, they are. Obergefell V. Hodges is in the crosshairs; overturning it was avowedly the goal of the people who fought hard to get this slate of Supreme Court Justices nominated to the bench, right next to overturning Roe v. Wade.
MLK did not succeed in his mission, that’s just a blatant lie. He won a few battles, and once he got close to real progress he was killed. No one “knew when to quit” they were decapitated and beaten into submission.
Honestly I think you have only a cursory understanding of MLKs life and mission, otherwise you wouldn’t be saying such ignorant things and trying to make him some example of why you shouldn’t be too “uppity” if you want “equality”.
You’re acting like he got tea with Hoover after they signed the civil rights act together, like it wasn’t a brutal conflict marred by violence, a full on non violent revolution, that was snuffed out.
Each of those links is a published correction and retraction of previous statements as new information came to light so they seem like principled journalists, with their tongues planted firmly in their cheeks.
I think it’s just a path a lot of developers have traveled, starting with JavaScript and moving to TypeScript. If you’ve gone through that pipeline than you probably feel very strongly about the benefits that TypeScript provides and it’s the fulcrum for your opinion on static vs dynamic typing
Too many web developers, basically, I don’t think the conflation is intentional
I think you have to give typescript a bit of a pass in terms of types. MS had unique constraints when designing it originally, so it's never going to meet the expectations of more hardcore "typists", but I think they've done a great job given the unique challenges. Not perfect for sure, but it's one of the few newer technologies where I think it's a clear win.
I’ve also used it quite a lot for advice as I was learning project management and moving away from individual contributions.
So I think as a consultant it has value, though I think “world class” might be a bit hyperbolic, since I still need to validate its output.