meandmycode

Sure, but is this unique to Windows or Word? and there are various ways Microsoft could kill bit this driver if it was widely exploited with no support from the company that made it

Seems quite a baited title, especially given some comments are jumping on Windows or VBA here - the actual title should be "getting ring0 by installing a terribly designed and dubious kernel driver", but that doesn't sound so impressive.

It's wild to me that 144fps 4k is the bar now, a decade ago people hotly debated 60fps being significant over 30 (which it certainly is), but I kinda feel like after 60fps QHD the perceptible difference just isn't there, or certainly not worth the procurement and operational cost.

I think it's dangerous to backup innovation the way you have here, the airpods may be innovative, but Apple actually doesn't need to innovate exactly because of the reasons you suggest

Really? it feels nothing like it honestly, source forge amongst other things started and ended with poor developer experience, in part they died from being outclassed.

> What the hell is "passion", how do quantify it and how do you use it? What happens when person you hired for "passion" loses it?

It's harder to quantify than 'expert in typescript' and maybe ill described and abused, but there are a diverse set of needs when it comes to engineering, it's not just deeply technical, it's also broadly technical with strong planning, entrepreneurial thought process etc.. my, perhaps naive view is the world definitely needs both of these so keep and open mind and stay respectful.. 'lmao' I'm certain you wouldn't do in person, debate is good but cmon, always put the extra effort in to understand and communicate your own gut reactions

Each time I've looked into the react based static site generators, even late last year this seems not to be true, at least not easy, they always seem to bundle client side js for rehydration, turning that off seemed impossible and wasn't a priority seemingly for many generators because the site would work without js enabled, but for cases where I don't want my sites payload to include a huge bundle of needless js then I was out of luck.

I'm not sure I agree at all, 3d engines render loop foregoes any attempt to skip unnecessary rendering to focus on fast, continuous rendering.

React on the other hand tries as hard as possible to avoid rendering, in fact it's whole design of immutability isn't because functional style is better, it's just convenient for it's requirements to avoid rendering.

For me react is more of an antichrist of UI tech, as much as I use it and rely on it, the day I can just mutate some state and that renders (i.e. .. just straight up dom), the better.. if I want to then layer on some immutability patterns then that's entirely in my apps domain.

Just pretty difficult to ensure a field really is visible to the user, the problem is it'll always have some weaknesses and those who would abuse it will find those weaknesses

As impressive as chakra is, V8 is the same in contrast to edgehtml to blink, they don't see the value of fragmenting support, and V8 really is getting very powerful, a blink+chakra browser would likely be more of a nightmare to developers

They will be using Chromium (blink+V8) but intend to continue the open source development of chakra, but I suppose edgehtml is dead.

Source: https://twitter.com/bterlson/status/1070754781822574592

It's a much better article, but really jumps the shark by the end, and the reasoning to convince become very unsound, like suggesting you'd only end up with ridiculous classes like 'image-card-with-a-full-width-section-and-a-split-section' .. but no I wouldn't.. I wouldn't ever put layout in a class name (full width), I'd call it the hero, priority or whatever it was semantically, which is a discussion with the ui/ux members of the team.

Composing utility classes via css (ala, what many have done for years since sass/less) is one thing, but then collapsing the component class all the way back to the html I really can only describe as jumping the shark, it's gone beyond logic.

As a frontend developer of 15-20 years now I've been pretty dumbfounded and unconvinced by any arguments for this style of css, I think it's especially hard for frontend developers of such duration because this is effectively the first ever style of css you write, and then you were force fed xhtml, semantic web and then later responsive became the "Told you so!" of the methodology.

Despite my scepticism of extremes of semantic web, I realise now when I read articles talking about switching to this style of css, their problems are entirely unrelatable to me because I implicitly see the conceptual structure of a design vs its visual specifics.

This just feels like a new age of developers don't see the need for the abstraction and so it's a constant mental burden for them without any benefit.. I think what has propped this up is that some of the problems that semantic css has historically only ever been able to solve (such as responsive) are now being solved differently, either through more powerful css layouts that implicitly layout better responsively, or that they rely instead on javascript to switch classes/html/components out with media query listeners.

Ultimately I think whatever you decide should be based on what your team aligns to best, don't feel guilty about 'not getting' this pattern, but I think it's important you pick one way, as mixing these worlds just doesn't work (at a project level), but certainly you should always try new things for new projects or experiments.

I find this to be a bit of a cop out, there's still less syntax than something like C# or Java, and plenty of developers are ok with those.. JavaScript went through years of nothing and then sudden change.. if you were only casually interested in it (say, a backend developer who just puts some js together) then criticizing seems unfair.. you can continue to write the exact same code, but expect those who write it as their primary language care a hell of a lot more about it being succinct and powerful.

It went through a bunch of iterations that simplified it, it used to be the abstract references operator which I believe would have a symbol lookup on the target function that would then allow the function to take over execution, thus allowing you to decide if the function would explicitly take the called upon object as `this` or as the first argument.

It gradually got simplified but nobody could agree about the behaviour of if this would _just work_ with existing functions via the `this` or the first argument, I think eventually the proponents if it grew tired of the battle, they couldn't get unified support for one way or the other.. interesting the pipeline operator has basically gone through the exact same issues, but seems to have had much more attention to it.

Ultimately I believe the bind operator was just too soon, generally at the time people were still trying to come to terms with what was a lot of new syntax coming to javascript, as well as react and similar things, now I think these chaining operators make a lot more sense to a lot more people.

What does immutable really mean when you only rent a domain name? I think about this occasionally with domains and email addresses, they've become a trusted piece of information, but over time the ownership of that thing changes, does make me wonder about fraud in the future when sizeable companies die off and their domains free up.

Can you really prove that feeling? because that's far from my experience and far from logical too..

Additionally, this 'fatigue' with front-end is getting a bit over told, I suspect it might be more alienation from developers who hacked jquery scripts together and feel they need to transition to app frameworks (I see so many simple websites and landing pages as react etc now).. where as those sites should just transition to vanilla js + dom..

The thing about inspired frameworks and 'churn' isn't a javascript/front-end thing, it happens everywhere, constantly... how many IOC, DI, ORM frameworks did Java and .NET have..

It's interesting actually that the article doesn't cover animation. Personally I think it's actually one of the most overlooked parts of 'visual design' these days.. animation I think is looked at quite harshly and as an unnecessary flashy aspect, and I think there's a lot of guilt of exceptional misguided use of animation, but I would say today that animation isn't used enough in the right cases, good animation can improve visual confidence with hierarchy and relationship of data and influence users perception of how responsive and well a product appears to react to them. Google have some good guidelines with material design and I think they are only really scratching the surface with what is and isn't good use of animation.

Yea, I remember the same was said when C# was introducing var, it's a valid concern but in reality it really isn't