lugg

Asking me to name perfect records is impossible and unnecessary. You do not have to maintain backwards compatibility forever in all cases.

My only argument is that it being the default approach to changing software isbwhat offers the best results without the added cost of semantic versioning and all the treeshaking failures that comes along with it.

Linux userland APIs, C/C++, WordPress, Clojure are all pretty successful software that maintain backwards compatibility as some form of priority and commitment with varying degrees of success.

None of which get much lament for doing so compared to say nodejs/JS/npm which are routinely the laughing stock of the industry for their lack of platform stability.

> Bug fix

Your point about these is pretty funny because these breaking changes are specifically allowed by semver as minor patches. Which was kind of my original point here it's a flawed spec that offers no real safety at great cost.

That wasn't the question.

The question was why do I think it's both flawed and universally accepted.

Because it is, and it isn't?

These are basic facts.

Have you read the semver spec?

Is your libraries new version compatible with my library?

How can you know?

How can I explain something I clearly disagree with?

Why is semver expected? Isn't it well known to be a flawed practice yet?

What is vague about misleading consumers, misrepresentation of product, fraud, carrying out greenwashing campaigns and generally lying to the public to maintain a marketable position?

Capitalism is about leveling the playing field. Not enabling crony assholes to play by their own set of rules.

It only makes sense to use the term allegedly when something isn't yet proven.

I'm curious how you believe either of those statements are anything but fact given what we now know.

You remind me of this Kevlin Henney talks that manages to cover a rather big range of programming concepts that keep getting recycled as the big new thing https://youtu.be/AbgsfeGvg3E

For those interested in the topic Paul Jarvis has a quickish read on the topic of "Company of one".

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07FQ2PFNN/

https://pjrvs.com/

I take it's probably a roundup of his newsletter but I found the book half way decent with mostly fresh insights that is, it wasn't heavily recycled compared to most books on this sort of thing.

Right to federate is the new right to repair.

Maybe logs vs definitely pipes your GETs straight to Utah.

Figure it out.

"unless you are on a hostile network"

Which I consider my ISP.. no, I can't just change ISP, I live under five eyes. I don't get a choice.

This article is rediculous. It's just a clickbait title and a whole bunch of ranting saying the exact opposite.

They now have a setting in content blocking that lets you choose between a less or more aggressive block list similar to how ublock works.

I rarely see things break anymore.

At my work we almost encourage the blog post in there idea.

It's not a hard and fast rule and it's ok to ignore it when it makes sense. But we also don't mind if your commit message takes longer to write than the code took to change and debug.

A lot of context is assumed in commits, and almost all of it is temporal. Capturing as much of that as possible pays off down the line.

Commit in the article is a good example where the context explains much more than the change.

(On the flip side, the pay off has an expiry date so I'm not extremely fussed when people lax, but it's still good to check in basic assumptions whith your code)

Why? (Honest question, hear me out)

Is it a vocab consistency thing?

I see pretty consistent vocab used across orgs anyway, so given there is shardd domain knowledge / language at play, im not sure what the goal for standardization is?

Don't take this the wrong way, I use a lot of these when appropriate, but I don't think I could agree that refactoring must be just a refactor, and I don't think I want to limit anyone's commits to this list of change types either.

Forcing changes into these words means a lot of stuff is pointlessly bucketed when more appropriate wording could be used.

Say I want to push a commit "prioritise shipping route a over route b".

So I have to put it under start? Optimise? Fix? Why? Prioritise is the right word, why not just use that? Why play mind games when we have a whole dictionary to draw from?

Wanted to mention this.

I don't stick to it as a rule but if it's clearly grouped in some way it gives people in the wider org a high level fyi about the area of code you're messing with.

Makes it easy to jump over the commit when bisecting for regressions or hastily looking for the buggy commit to revert.

> nursing homes and other critical services scrambled to find backup power and even government agencies calling the company were put on hold for hours

I would say they accomplished a whole damn lot. People are going to be a million times more prepared for the next one.

Nursing homes being without a power backup is an unnaceptable state of affairs.

The amount of people that seemed utterly lost about what to do without power is disturbing. People should be more prepared. Especially given last year's events.

It's rediculous people are blaming PG&E for this. I think they're an awful company but they made the right call here and seem to be acting amicably.

A short notice and smooth event was basically impossible given that even government agencies don't know the right numbers to call.

Evolution and natural selection do work on those timescales. Take a look at rapid evolution for examples.

I'm not sure how fast exactly human birth ratios swing but I would hazard a guess a few dozen generations would be enough to self select at least partially back towards the norm. How long did it take the worlds population to recover after WW1/2?

I'm happy to see evidence contrary but please don't just dismiss things as if evolution is working on geological timescales it's just not.

You can basically assume the overall population gender ratio was 1:1, the birth ratio might have been different but that is expected.

It's a self correcting phenomenon where the ratio self selects towards 1:1.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle

There was a really good talking the entire history of unicode recently:

https://youtu.be/IXNIqThaSs8

Some might find it more digestable than the linked page.

> First, Python uses loose typing, which was great for a small team rapidly developing new ideas and putting them into production—but less great for an enterprise-scale application that some customers were paying millions of dollars for.

Code review is supposed to catch people trying to mix return types, mess with or overload parameters in unexpected ways.

Static typing removes this need but adds a million more.

If your people aren't catching this stuff in review, they're probably not catching other stuff, that is, static typing isn't going to save you like you think it is.

Aka PBKAC

Nor the world or the internet is this black and white. And heartbleed begs to differ.

I thought this was obvious? (Serious, not snark)

You start explaining what you need and work backwards, on the other end, they work in reverse, because that's how it's stored.

Conceptually, it's like piping in bash, "find | grep | cut". Start with finding the files(tables), grep for the row data (where), cut the fields you want returned (select).

You just described functions.

Please add DISTRIBUTED when you're actually remote first without exceptions.

Exceptions that make you not really remote, and generally annoying as hell to search through,

US only

Partial remote

Remote considered

Remote for some roles

Remote in timezone

Remote or onsite

Planned obsolescence should be a criminal act.

It's worse than any standard pollution offenses we have in place.

It's surprising we even let companies get away with these practices for this long. The practice is against consumer interests, socially irresponsible and utterly reprehensible as a business method.

If you still sit squarely on the side of the companies on this one, realise capitalisms current growth or bust model is entirely dependent on continual expenditure of Earth's resources.

I'd love to see algol come back with a fresh syntax.

Blog post has no link: https://nim-lang.org/

It's only awkward until apple does it.

There isn't any actual reason this should be awkward other than your personal bias telling you you're doing something that is not normal - yet.

Changing the name of something in attempt to rebrand causes confusion.

I'm shocked.