explaininjs

A piece of software that hasn’t been touched in 5 years, let alone adopted in any professional production environment? Cool…

No… it’s not. But if you know something I don’t the 5 primes will certainly be happy to pay you handsomely for the implementation!

Looks fine, but you can tell the topology isn’t good based on the lack of wireframes.

Because the content hasn’t been filtered. If the adversary attempts to make a post and is prohibited from doing so (or is unable to see their post on a different browser/etc.), they will try harder to make the post “sneaky”.

On the other hand if they make a post, see the post, open their phone, see the post there (tons of times! how effective!), they move on with their day.

In some sense it’s actually a genius answer to the spam arms race: refuse to participate. This way, the spam is immediately obvious. In the proposed word where sophisticated spam detection algorithms are built, the adversary develops sophisticated spamming techniques that become difficult for even an experienced user to detect.

Indeed. We call them “passport holders”.

I have a friend that incurred massive medical debts in college when their (college-provided) insurance refused to cover services rendered at the (college) hospital. The college then made all sorts of threats like “you won’t be able to graduate until this $$,$$$ bill is paid!!!”. Keep in mind my friend was only able to attend college on a full scholarship as a result of coming from a poor ESL family.

They ignored all the threats, the department in charge of threatening seemingly didn’t talk to the department in charge of graduation, and to this day (5 years later) they still receive near-daily letters in the mail requesting payment. I can’t say I find my friend’s actions unethical in the slightest.

Ah! The UC system…

You'll note the genocide of the entire Jewish people was not a part of your list of great travesties (and indeed they are). But the question is not "has the US done everything perfectly ever", it's: "Can you envision a better world order than Pax Americana? What, specifically, would that look like?"

Yes, the unexpectedly effective brute force solution to the eternal bickering siblings problem: "I don't care who started it, I'm ending it!".

Typically invoked immediately after the stronger party commits such a disproportionally large show of power as to attract your attention anew to their otherwise minor long-term petty dispute.

Controversial to be sure. But I'd challenge down-voters to instead (additionally?) provide a framework of their envisioned "conceivable alternative" new world order which would be more peaceful, just, and better to live in.

Yes, the aggressor would be the one to call out, not the defender.

Is your goal to support the idea or not? Universal acceptance of a moral perspective throughout history would typically be considered justification to continue accepting that perspective.

Unless of course a new angle was provided that called into question said perspective. Which you have not done here.

If you ask me the lube just accelerated the problem. The root cause remains that you have a part secured with only a friction fit, in a setting where if that friction fit fails you have a a critical failure of the system. Friction fits can be very strong when properly established between appropriate materials, but this was not that. This was a cheap plastic cover made to be a bit too small over the metal lever. Over time with heat, sand/dirt, cold, pressure, vibration, etc. cycles, this was going to fall off regardless.

If you know how the right amount feels, it really does not matter one bit how far off your initial measurement is. You start with an amount too low, and you add more until it feels right. If the amount you start with is 24% too low vs 20% too low bears no significance. Obviously you shouldn't start with an amount so far off as to be too high, but again that would never happen if you are going by feel.

You also don't get consistent results if you assume the type of flour, atmospheric humidity, baking conditions, etc etc. etc. will be the exact same as the recipe author's and simply blindly follow the exact measurements because "precision!".

The best approach is to watch a video that clearly demonstrates how the product should look and feel at every point along the process, and do what you can to imitate that - even if it means leaving your scales and cups in the cupboard.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brainwashing:

    brainwashing - noun 
    
    1. a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas

    2. persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship

I see it too. Seems to just be an article they like. Perhaps they condition advertisements on referrers.

Edit: I see now it's a video, meaning it's really just a flashy headline that gets you to click and immediately watch though an ad. They probably make quite a pretty penny off of that.

I'v never experienced that actually working, despite several attempts. Or when it does work, the overhead makes it not worth it.

A CSP can be configured to disallow external stylesheets too. I don't see how that's particularly relevant. But obviously if for some reason a CSP was configured as such, and I had no power to change it, I'd work around it.

Only if you're refusing to consider inline styles. Which is an odd decision to make if we're comparing to Tailwind.

That said, I agree that this doesn't work for pseudo selectors, very unfortunately, and I wish it would.

I actually just downloaded the VS Code extension earlier today as a result of this discussion, perhaps that will change my opinion. Because for me the two flows would be:

   1. I find the element I need to style
   2. I add/edit the inline style={{}} attribute I have for it by typing `sty<TAB>{borrad<TAB>`
   3. I add a value

VS:

   1. I find the element I need to style
   2. I add/edit the className attribute
   3. I pull up the tailwind documentation to find how to type the CSS I already have memorized in their DSL (I know some Tailwind by heart, but wayyyyy more CSS)
   4. I wait for it to load
   5. I scroll down to find the version of the class name that I need
   6. I go back to the editor and add the class.

Also a very common flow for me is to edit the CSS directly in the browser, it's a much faster devloop than the fastest live reload server. In that case it's far easier to just copy from the `changes` view into the CSS than go through and remap everything from CSS into Tailwind.

Mainly because nobody is a "CSS Dev". If someone's entire job was developing CSS, you might expect that they would be willing to learn one new slightly different way of doing it. But in reality the pushback comes from full stack developers who already have a million other things to worry about, such that relearning all the basic CSS they already know, to achieve benefits that are rather minuscule in the grand scheme of things, is a low priority. I personally am working on a Tailwind product that is fairly small (~10k lines, perhaps), and the Tailwind isn't an annoyance per-say, but it's definitely less ergonomically friendly than the well-engineered enterprise application I was working on before, which was 100x the size and used exclusively pure CSS.

Personally, my dream would be if inline styles supported the full CSS gamut of pseudo selectors and the child element selector. Then you'd have the admitted benefits of not needing to synchronize the two files, along with the benefit of not needing to relearn all of CSS.

Edit: it's funny, in a way, that all these developers complaining about how CSS "doesn't scale" are likely writing their Tailwind in an large scale application styled entirely via CSS. https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Amicrosoft%2Fvscode++langu...

> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'd be more willing to give the book the benefit of the doubt if it wasn't so blatant in proposing that the solution he likes is the Really Good Solution that has no downsides besides being "hard to understand". As if that wasn't a major downside in and of itself.

That said, being annoyingly cock-sure when you have the chops to back it up with an actual ideal solution is one thing, the same attitude when you present a questionably engineered algorithm and blatantly disregard its drawbacks (up to ~2x higher runtime / more "reads" needed to generate an answer) by implying only the less intelligent "non-artisans" would ever fail to appreciate it is entirely different.

This version should have [2019] in the title.

Picking an example at random: https://github.com/raganwald/javascript-allonge-six/blob/mas..., I'm not sure what the real purpose of the book is... it seems to present overly elaborate ways to implement basic "good" algorithms, followed by a simple way to implement the parallel naïve algorithm. And it fails to provide a comprehensive summary of the potential benefits of the naïve algorithm, in this case that fewer cells would need to be read out (the person could be reading out commands for twice as long in the "good" algorithm!).

I'd much prefer to have the simple and good implementation, or one that starts out simple and works towards complexity based on explicit optimization tradeoffs, but that would appear to be outside of the scope of the book.

I wonder how the Quality of Life compares between a Phillipina woman living on whatever her pay is compares to the NYC cashier paying $2,000 a month for a small bed behind a sheet in the corner of a shared apartment.

I provided the script, you assigned the blame.

If you were to have asked me instead of asserted at me, I'd have said there is no human blame to be placed. The Word took on human form specifically to fulfill the role of the sinless martyr and win over satan, and so He did.

I've heard speculation of demons in the midst of the crowd responsible for guiding the mob, that seems plausible but I do not know of a strong scriptural argument in favor of it.

None of that is to say that it is in any way inaccurate to attribute the words of the Jews to the Jews. This idea that we need to reshape history at every turn in order to not be interpreted as "anti-semeitic" needs to perish.

Also, I fear you do not really understand anything the Bible really says – despite your love for the Greek – if you think European "anti-semitism" (a phrase invented by the nazis to "scientificize" their hatred which we should not continue to use, but I digress) is the original (and "truest", whatever that means) form of anti-Jewish sentiment. The Jews have been characterized as an ostracized, even enslaved, people from the absolute beginning (Book 2, at minimum) – well before the concept of "Europe" even existed. And most certainly well before humanity knew of Jesus.

Has it been? I think it's pretty universally believed that he was sentenced despite having committed no crimes and died sinless. He was tried for promoting not paying taxes and was judged to have not done so. There's really no room for other interpretations I can see, but if you can provide some Christian source which interprets that statement (You should return this coin to Caesar, it's his) as saying you shouldn't pay taxes, I'd love to hear it.