jallen_dot_dev

If the items can be re-ordered (like prioritizing todos in a todo list) then items' keys will change when they should be stable.

> such a technique should only be necessary if the items don’t come with unique and stable ids on their own.

FWIW, these tips are also covered in his React course and he makes it clear in the course that this key generation technique should only be done when items don't have something better to use as the key. I think the blog post is just missing that context.

No, it doesn't make sense. You use a browser to view and interact with a website (which is what the competition is about). So why would Github being browser-centric be a ding against Github when the competition is browser-centric?

No, not really. Their project solution was a collection of webpages. Github didn't generate any HTML or code that went into those pages.

Visiting github.com to look at the pretty-formatted readme was not part of the project.

The judges don't have to use Github. OP was disqualified because the judge noticed either the Github banner on the page or github in the url.

> GitHub ... is extremely browser centric.

This is a strange criticism if we're talking about a website competition.

> GitHub parses this into that little blurb you see below the repo. This is technically a violation of the rules. Part of your project is technically generated by GitHub.

No, that's Github interpreting markdown for display on Github.com. That's not generating any part of the project that they submitted.

> unless you're inserting things that didn't happen.

The comment suggested:

> find some company that has closed shop in the past two months. Their HR staff etc. will be long gone, and who's to say if you worked there or not.

> straight up lying to your new customers

A bit overdramatic don't you think? Cheap is a matter of opinion.

> why even use an (obvious, provocative) balloon in the first place, when China has perfectly good satellites.

The balloon floated about 100x closer to the surface than a satellite in low-Earth orbit and travelled much slower, making it potentially easier to collect signals/images.

Absolutely agree, I'm just thinking the suit is frivolous for that reason. The defendants don't have the ability (mind control over everyone who runs Bitcoin software) to fulfill a duty if they had one.

> The claim alleges that the developers owe "fiduciary duties" and "duties in tort" to re-write or amend protocol code in order to give Wright access to 111,000 bitcoin

I suppose a court could compel core devs to accept such a change, if it came to that. But how could a court compel Bitcoin node operators to run that version of the software? That's what would actually need to happen, to give someone back their coins (or rather, a version of their coins that most people actually value).

Wright could make the change himself (or get someone else to do it) because the software is open source. It's getting everyone else to run the software that matters.

> the U.S. is dangerously behind China when it comes to balloon technology.

Mr. President, we must not allow a balloon gap!

> It's only a matter of time before the public collectively says, "Why should I care if it's a computer or a human making the song? I just like it."

I guess I'm ahead of the curve because I'll ask it now: If I like a song, why should I care if it's a computer or a human making it?

The bro addition is mostly because the people doing this are overwhelmingly bros.

> (Not mentioned in the article is that they collect garbage from platform trash bins the same way.)

Armed guards seem like overkill for collecting garbage.

Seems like a really bad idea to mandate that download be no higher than upload. Would just result in few/no plans with high down bandwidth.

I'll take a wild guess and say it's for those who "cannot fathom how people [eat healthy]."

Weight after eating is not a good predictor for how a food will affect body composition. Examples of two extremes: you could eat a big salad that's relatively heavy (water + fiber) but that weight won't stick around more than a day. Or you could have a bunch of cookies that are relatively light weight, but easily tip your energy balance and end up increasing body fat.

You (as an individual miner) would still mine the same number of blocks on average as before, nothing has changed from your perspective (difficulty/hashrate). You would find a larger percent of all blocks mined, but same absolute number of blocks.

> you have ample opportunity to verify the transaction's correctness before offering it for submission

I think the idea is malware on your computer could submit the signed, fraudulent transaction against your will.

> if your site was created on that date according to ICANN records

But that's not what the record indicates. You are confusing the concepts of a site and a domain name. A name points to a site. A site can exist before a name is registered.

It looks like her site used to be hosted at studiokittiya.com[1] which was registered in 2020.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20211218023642/https://studiokit...

> Also worth noting that her own website, registered in July of 2022, has posts backdated to April and March of 2021, which is strange to say the least.

So if you register a new domain name, you have to go back and edit your site's publication dates to be on or after the date in your whois record? lol?

Weatherman in the Middle

There are plenty of users who get fooled again and again on shitcoin rug-pulls so I'm sure they will try again on Binance.

But the bulk of the response to COVID (what hackyhacky is arguing) did not happen under the current administration, so wouldn't be due to their policies (what TimTheTinker is arguing).

> Or even more radical simply stop issuing Treasuries and just run an overdraft with the Fed.

> Paying interest is entirely a policy choice. Congress can change the rules of the game if it wants to and can stop paying anything.

Simply destroy the credibility of the US to pay its debts.

This article does an annoying thing where it gives you stats without proper comparison so you can't tell if the numbers are actually out of the ordinary.

> A deputy to top health official Anthony Fauci reported 10 sales of mutual funds and stocks totaling between $157,000 and $480,000 that month.

Impossible to tell if that's suspicious without knowing how much that deputy normally trades.

> officials at another health agency, Health and Human Services, reported 60% more sales of stocks and funds in January than the average over the previous 12 months

A better comparison would be to January 2019 to account for seasonality. Maybe people rebalance/reevaluate their investments at the start of the year.

> Then-Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao purchased more than $600,000 in two stock funds

Again, impossible to tell if that is unusual without comparison. Apparently she is worth 10s of millions of dollars.

> Nearly 400 officials across 50 agencies reported owning stocks in airline, resort, hotel, restaurant and cruise companies in early 2020, the review found.

Okay...?

> [March] was the most active for trading by officials across the federal government, including at HHS

March was the most active for trading, period. Because the markets were melting down. Also, by March the impact was more widely known to the public.

There's more stuff below the fold but this is getting tedious.

Considering all the parties mentioned, from city leaders to committees etc., the massive figure makes more sense when you realize it's actually a welfare program in disguise to support a bunch of people with bullshit jobs.

"Any sufficiently advanced engineered system is indistinguishable from raw physics."

I think you're both right to a degree? They are lens artifacts and we can't just remove them because we don't have the data of what's behind the spikes, as that is what the sensor can see. We'd be filling them in with black or our best guess based on neighboring pixels, either way it wouldn't be what one would "really" see. Unless we composited images from another source, then that'd come closer to accurate.