ArchReaper

There is a notably large group of app developers who all say they have been completely ghosted by Reddit when it comes to any kind of private communication.

Not to mention this comes out of the blue immediately before their IPO after years of status quo, without consulting devs, moderators, or literally anyone outside of reddit HQ. They are also well aware of the cost it would have on 3rd party devs and how unreasonable they are given the extremely-similar level of activity inside the first-party app.

Should a company be allowed to try to make a profit? Of course, no one is arguing against that. The issue is context.

And the way your question is worded implies third party app devs are greedy and unreasonable for wanting to continue to exist while reddit is too mishandled to make a profit. It's a childish "well why can they have anything when I have nothing" take. If the issue is actually profit, why does it only come up without warning just before the IPO? After over 10 years of never coming up before, never even being a discussion point before.

Also, can you name any of the things Reddit has added over the last 5 years that you care about? A single one? They took on both image and video hosting, at I'm sure an insane cost - why? They added NFT avatars - a transparent attempt to cash in on NFTs. A new layout that all the old users hate, removal of the ability to log in on the mobile site. Does anyone remember when they fired Victoria for no god damn reason? Pretty sure that was the last content-related contribution they've made to the platform. Administration is dead set on extracting any kind of profit they can out of something they give no fucks about outside of their ability to profit off of it. They handicap and ruin their own platform for the sake of attempting to make a bit more money.

Context matters. Don't blind yourself by ignoring context.

https://morroblivion.com/

Security and privacy issues are clearly very real.

Edit: source, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/pranavdixit/google-bans...

Article still needs proofreading lol

>And every time some information will be lost

Maybe from an embedded systems/OS point-of-view, but these statements are just not true on the web.

Edit: what's with the downvotes? I'm not defending the practice, just stating facts.

> We sent notices to Whoisguard between October 2018 and February 2020, and despite their obligation to provide information about these infringing domain names, they declined to cooperate.

Title should be closer to "Facebook sues Namecheap/Whoisguard for not providing information on phishing domain registrants"

This is inaccurate - it was very clearly not intended to 'create discord between users' and claiming that it was is at best politically biased and at worse a lie.

EDIT: OP edited their comment, I will leave mine as-is.

Translation: our shitty software update practices are now affecting Github, not just Windows!

If anyone from Microsoft is reading this, why is your company so incompetent at software updates in the past few years?

> The only answer is corruption of the prison staff.

> Smuggling is impossible unless staff turn a blind eye, or procedures are sufficiently lax

Here's an example: these two statements are false.

Trying to present opinions as facts makes you non-credible, you should avoid doing it.

Aside from the horrendous variable naming, I'm having trouble understanding what the author actually accomplished, and why it's necessary for a tool like this to exist in the first place.

Can anyone translate the problem into a more simplified, non-Haskell-specific version?

> jonk :: (a -> b) -> ((a -> Int) -> Int) -> ((b -> Int) -> Int)

I have no idea what this line means.

To me, it looks like he wants to write a transformer that matches a specific signature, and he uses a tool that tells him which functions can fit the 'hole' he has in the code, based on types. If I'm correct (I'm assuming I'm not), how is this different than intellisense in an IDE that tells you a list of type-valid functions/variables? Why is this a necessary part of the Haskell coding process? My first instinct is that this demonstrates a problem with the language, if something like this is necessary.

Appreciate anyone that tries to explain. I know most of my assumptions are probably wrong.

Undefined. The problem was never a lack of technical proficiency, the problem is the culture.

That might make sense when you view it through this specific lens, but that design decision allowed them to save character positions on ladders and make 'getting on' and 'getting off' be separate 'things' - just off the top of my head.

The '2 interactions' method actually makes the most sense in the context of their game engine - it's the same way getting 'on' or 'off' a chair works.

Their fix of just allowing interactions is probably the most correct option. That is essentially toggling a setting, as opposed to re-engineering how ladder mechanics work.

Games are complicated.

useState returns 2 variables - a getter and a setter, where the getter is just a variable and not even a function to call.

How is that equatable to some hidden construct? How is Clojure superior to that?

The '1 language' version requires you to learn language-specific syntax for creating HTML elements.

How is that more compelling?