pythonaut_16

If it just renewed and this changes breaks your use case you can probably request a refund since your system is no longer supported.

Everyone being aware of an issue without it ever being raised or acknowledged is equally demotivating and results in the same attitude.

That was my thought too.

If it's an unnecessary mental load (for developers or managers) to find out about the tasks currently being worked on and what they are, then the problem is with your work/task tracking system, not with your developers.

More efficiently for what?

I feel like you're being a little disingenuous to the OP. He's obviously talking about the economic/productivity value of the land, which is to say that the BLM considers large parts of the country to have little economic value beyond growing grass and thus designates it as free range grazing land.

It doesn't mean it has no value as a wild, natural environment, just that from an economic development perspective there's not a lot going on there.

I don't think Tesla is really considered a serious competitor in the self driving car industry by anyone besides Tesla.

Which is probably fortunate for all the other players since all of the Autopilot issues get attributed mainly to Tesla rather than to self driving cars.

They do have an app, although it's based on GPS + selecting a location rather than iBeacons.

It's actually one of the more interesting challenges of beacon (and QR) adoption; most of the obvious/easy to implement use cases are already well supported by GPS

I'm not talking about personal risk, I'm talking about risk of loss in absolute value, i.e. the investor is risking more capital so they claim a bigger share of the reward.

If the musician was able to provide enough capital/resources on their own by risking their entire livelihood they'd have no need for an investor and could take the entire profits of the venture for themselves.

I'm not making a moral judgement here, I'm just saying that it's a fairly straight forward logic as to why people who "only contributed financing get a bigger cut". The OP is wrong to claim they get a bigger cut because they're already rich, they get a bigger cut because they're risking more capital in the venture. It is secondary that them being rich means they have more capital available to take risks.

There is little to no evidence of this.

I don't think I've ever seen someone claim to use Linux because it's free (no cost). It's almost always because it's an open platform or because it has the best tools for the job they're doing (e.g. development work).

So in that sense, a Linux user might be less likely to use a product if they care most about the openness of the platform.

They get a bigger cut because they bore the most risk and were willing to support a venture that otherwise wouldn't have had the resources to happen.

Their exact cut is generally a balance between the risk, reward, and ability of the venture to happen without them.

I'd love to see a game where cheating and scripting is the primary means of gameplay. By default the game would present a very simple UI but players would be encouraged to write and share scripts enabling varying levels and types of functionality.

As a game developer your job then would be to write interesting enough systems for players to exploit to come up with interesting gameplay. I can imagine a scenario where different Overwatch-style "classes" emerge all built from the same basic game elements.

You can already order McDonald's from the app, just without the NFC.

It's actually an interesting challenge when it comes to mobile. A number of things that could be handled with NFC (and QR, beacons, etc) end up being implemented using GPS and the phone's network connection.

What kind of development are you doing on it? Have you found a good workflow yet?

I've given up running Linux natively on my computers and I'm trying to find the best Windows 10 workflow

They're both tools used to build interactive websites.

The parent didn't understand why developers would be happy that React got the greenlight. My response was that React (and Vue) really is a much better tool for building interactive websites than many older tools like jQuery.

Sounds like you really don't understand development if you think getting to use React isn't a big deal.

React (and others like it, e.g. Vue) really is a huge win and solves a ton of pain points common to front end development. It still has its own pain points, but it's hard to overstate how much of an improvement it is over other older approaches like jQuery.

It's fine because you can just turn on the Autopilot while you adjust the radio and everything will be fine.

Without any evidence to back up your claim I could just as easily claim that for every hiring manager who cares about seeing a GPA on a resume there are three others who think there's something wrong with an applicant with any experience who does put their GPA on their resume.

I think it's kinda like Google working with Android as an open source project. Google makes money on Android primarily by using Android as a means of delivering the Google ecosystem. They don't care that it's open source because they don't make money by selling it.

Apple could do the same thing with maps. Support a robust open mapping initiative to make sure their primary business (selling iPhones and other devices) has a solid platform for emerging technologies like AR. Making sure they have a solid maps offering supports the Apple (aka iPhone) ecosystem.

Also similarly to Google, they can still push plenty of proprietary things on top of the open parts of the initiative.

If you have a function that's using if statements to decide which boolean to return, it's almost always better to return the expression directly.

`if (foo) { return true } else { return false }`

is the same as `return boolean(foo)`

On the other end, Vue is a natural move for companies looking to move off of jQuery and AngularJS but afraid or unwilling to make the move to React, and I suspect there are an order of magnitude more companies in this category than companies that have already adopted React.

I agree. The use of "Blowing away" in the title is incendiary and unnecessary.

It would be far better to state the metric they're using, i.e. "GitHub Stars !== Usage: React downloads still surpass Vue and Angular"

It's taken React about 2-3 years to go from being head to head with Angular(JS) to being the dominant frontend ecosystem. I expect within 2-3 years Vue and React will be on far more equal footing in terms of usage and jobs. (Assuming something else doesn't come along and topple the current trend towards reactive frontend tools.)

Self driving cars are both defense and security related.

No, on average existing drivers kill more than 100 people each day [source?].

There's no proof yet that self driving cars are safer than human drivers. And more importantly there's a big difference between being safer on average than a human driver, and being safer than the average human driver.

Django is a far bigger pain than Vue.

DRF is great for making APIs, authenticating and talking to the APIs with Vue is super easy and straight forward (I recommend using Axios and writing service files in Javascript to encapsulate the logic for actually calling the API.

The main pain point is that Django is kind of unwieldy to deploy, because you'll have your built Vue project (i.e. the dist/ folder by default), and then you'll have the collectstatic files from Django, so setting up a build process that combines all of that is a bit difficult.

I also like the 90/90 rule:

The first 90% of the work takes 90% of the time. The remaining 10% of the work takes the other 90% of the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule

To be fair though, that sort of thing has already been very possible for anyone with the desire and engineering resources. The only thing those types of demonstrations and announcements tend to actually do is announce/release a tool that does most of the legwork for you.

And it's awful. Not even comparable to Github and GitLab

From the standpoint of an end user (which is all of the people complaining about Microsoft acquiring Github) VCs and their money are the bad guys, because the dynamics of their investment is what causes the acquisitions which change the service in ways that I (the end user) do not like.

Not saying they're right or wrong (I think at the very least it's a limited point of view) but that's the argument being made.

More than you'd expect, as they've open sourced and contributed to a number of open source projects based on their development of Github.com

Fossil is interesting and cool (written by the same guy as SQLite to facilitate SQLite development, but it's disingenuous to describe is as "an open source alternative to Git" when Git is open source, GPL licensed, and originally created by Linus Torvalds to facilitate the development of the (also GPL) Linux kernel.