BBC, NPR and Washington Post are all left leaning organizations funded by governments and billionaires. I don't know if I would call this "getting a reasonable overview of world and local news".
BBC, NPR, and Washington Post are all neutral organizations.
WaPo is the home of neocons Hugh Hewitt and Jennifer Rubin. When I first started reading WaPo, they were considered (and they considered themselves to be) far right neocons. These days, Ms. Rubin would be classified as a moderate (and considers herself to be an independent) and Mr. Hewitt is frequently accused of being a RINO. They haven't changed their political stances (if anything, Hewitt is more conservative now than he was before); it is simply that the Republican Party has moved extremely far to the right in the past decade and what was once considered extreme is now moderate.
Yuuuup. Like the above poster said, conservatives have gone way off the deep end…to the point where sometimes it’s really ducking hard to talk in any sort of neutral tone.
I read a lot of Reuters during the trump admin and boy you could hear their tone subtly slip the whole time and when the election results were being contested, journalists everywhere were straight up calling it baseless and inflammatory. Not very neutral but also just facts. And at some point, trying to sound neutral no matter the circumstances is going to sound insane.
I like Angular and I think it's still a solid choice for new apps in an enterprise setting, and signals are a welcome addition that solve real problems, but I don't understand the hype. Signals are as old as JavaScript if not older. The diamond problem and sync propagation are not new problems. We've come full circle. Old problems become new problems but with the same solutions. What did we gain with all of these iterations if we landed back on what was essentially the Knockout model of 2010?
I'm reminded of papers such as "Deprecating the Observer Pattern (2010) [1]" which documented solutions to these problems a long time ago.
I guess every large ecosystem has to rediscover certain facts… same thing with yaml and xml on the sysadmin excuse me devops side, nosql getting transactions and scans… everywhere you look there’s a bunch of people who like doing more than reading, and also doing gets rewarded much more than reading. The outcome is inevitable. Can’t wait for the next cycle, really curios what we’ll rediscover next.
do-notation can be easily implemented using delimited continuations (ie. generators). Generators compose well and flatten tail calls so you don't need TCO or trampolines. The only notable issue is that one-shot delimited continuations like generators don't work with non-deterministic monads (ie. List). Multi-shot can be emulated by keeping a cache of past values and replaying the generator, but performance will suffer. See burrido [1] for a JavaScript do-notation implementation.
There isn't much difference nowadays. I think it's just a matter of preference as long as the trackpad is made of glass, which aren't hard to find on PC's anymore.
I even prefer my PC trackpad on Linux vs my Mac trackpad on macOS because on Linux there are many more settings I can configure to get it working exactly to my liking.
Personally, I don't like the cursor acceleration profile in macOS by default. You can change certain values through the terminal, but the Synaptics and libinput options on Linux are way more in depth and packaged in a nice GUI (at least in KDE Plasma).
So the employer punishes people that cannot afford to live close to the office? And on top of that, if they need to travel to conduct business, their pay is decreased? If I understand this right, it seems like a horrible idea, and I would not want to work at a place like that at all. If the company needs to hire talent that lives far away, why should they be punished?
> So the employer punishes people that cannot afford to live close to the office?
This already happens. If you aren't local, you can't even get the job.
> if they need to travel to conduct business, their pay is decreased?
Yes and no. If you're talking "I need you to go to China to meet with investors" no, if you're talking "we're having an all hands meeting on the first Monday of each month" then yes, but the employer is paying for your airfare and lodging as well.
> If the company __needs__ to hire talent that lives far away, why should they be punished?
Needs? Who said that? They just need employees. I'm talking about how much they need them in the office. If you don't need them in the office at all, then no pay differentials. But if you do need them in the office, well obviously there's different utility for that employee and should pay not reflect utility, as opposed to locality?
I mentioned in another thread the following scenario. Office in SF, one remote worker in Phoenix, another in NYC. How does the one in NYC have more utility than the one in AZ? (which is how pay works under current remote schemes) I'd argue it is easier/cheaper to get the AZ employee to the office. The AZ employee also shares the same time zone half the year and is only an hour off the rest of the year. How is that fair? So why not make it a function of distance and how much you are needed in the office rather than where you live?
That's not the comparison as far as I understand it. The analogy is of someone that dedicates all their time to becoming the best at their craft, like Chopin. It's not about being a genius.
I don't agree with the first two points. Native applications aren't consistent in this way. There are dozens of cross-platform GUI kits and they all behave slightly different, just like Electron apps. If you want consistency, you need to build multiple apps, one for each OS with their respective toolkits. Ain't nobody got time for that when you can easily build on Electron and target browsers, macOS, Windows, and Linux in one single app. No wonder Electron is winning the battle so far, regardless of your last point.
Native implies that you are building for each OS and their native toolkit. On macOS, you write Cocoa. On Linux you write GNOME or KDE or CDE. On Windows you write...I dunno. Win32 probably.
Current tech is C++/WinRT, for this year, but last year it was WPF and five years ago it was XAML, then previously it was MFC/ATL, and original Win32 somewhere back in the old days.
And Linux isn't better. I think OSX is the only desktop OS that has an idea of what an app should look like.
MacOS used to have a choice between Carbon and Cocoa, didn't it? Maybe still does.
C++/WinRT uses XAML. But XAML isn't a control library/toolkit. You can tell because it isn't called the Extensible Application Control Library. I'd say it shouldn't be included in your list, but MFC/ATL is just a way of accessing Win32 via C++ -- it makes the same function calls -- so it's not clear that your purpose was to make a fair statement about native development, but perhaps to complain about Windows turnover of apis.
On Linux, it's quite simple to live entirely in Gtk-compatible land. I think Firefox and JetBrains are the only foreigners I use on my box, but I'd be using them on any opertaing system so it's not exactly a fair cop.
Let's go with a file picker dialog, a simple OS-provided component. Windows provides three versions of this dialog (the "app" view, the tree-view, and the explorer-in-your-app view) depending on which API you use. You see this pattern repeated. It being the same calls "underneath" is true, but it's also irrelevant, as the user experience noticeably changes depending on which API is invoked.
It is indeed ironic. I was initially interested in the content, but I closed the site in less than a minute after getting frustrated by the emojis, blurry text and annoying sidebar and header animations when scrolling.
I remember another site with similar content and also pretty annoying UX: https://lawsofux.com
I'd take a long markdown document with a table of contents over this any day.
I'm still interested in reading about these UX principles though. Is there another alternative, easier to read resource?
