thomasfoster96

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your point. I thought you meant that inconsistency was worse than misusing constructors.

> "human-like"

Aren't all species of the genus Homo called humans?

I wonder if they're being processed as ES6 Template Strings?

> That could still make it not error when called the same was as other constructors.

What do you mean? That new Symbol() should just ignore the 'new'?

Take a look at this[0] with regards to strings.

I'm not really sure why you'd use new String anyway - it won't always act as a string primitive. Rather than making Symbol reimplement the same quirks that other built in constructors do, isn't not allowing a Symbol constructor going to avoid a lot of confusion?

For example, if you created an object using a hypothetical symbol constructor, the symbol would be converted to a string if you tried to use it as an object key (internally, JavaScript sees your symbol object as an object, not a symbol), which is simply creating problems for a naive programmer.

[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

It's because the Symbol() function is creating a primitive value, not an object. There is no literal syntax for symbols, as there is for numbers, strings, etc., and so the symbol function is how you make them. Having a symbol constructor would be of little use (it'd be like using new Number()) and so it wasn't included.

Well, it's a good compromise to avoid having a 'iterate' method on the object prototype, which would risk name collisions, etc.

Sorry if my comment ignored the contributions many companies make to OSM - but I think the article expresses concern that OSM's potential as something that can be contributed to within a local community is threatened by people from first world cities mapping swathes of area from satellite images. I disagree with that idea of course - I think the nature of contributing to OSM already favours in the field volunteers.

I'm not entirely sure this article ever makes some sort of conclusion, but I think it mistakenly projects problems that often occur within open online community projects in general onto open street map. For example, osm still values information from people on the ground over information aggregated from tertiary sources - while a community like Wikipedia would instead value the latter greatly over the former. Those sorts of distinctions make osm perhaps not more engaging but certainly a nicer thing to contribute to.

Otherwise, I think some of the issues raised in the article regarding ease of contributing for locals is very much an issues of technology access that is outside the scope of the osm community.

Aside: I'm amazed at how good the coverage on osm of some third world cities (particularly slums) is - far better than any other online mapping service I've seen.

Each of these cards could probably be made with one element and some CSS3 pseudo-element selectors, as opposed to the four elements (wrapper element and three child elements) that are currently used per card.

Additionally, with three elements (possible just one if you're crazily good at CSS), it'd be possible to have flippable cards. Still just using CSS3.

Edit: Can someone explain these downvotes for me?

> There's nothing wrong with examining a person for a year before letting them settle in your country. The system has worked well thus far, why bust it up?

The Australian government just got given yet another report telling them that this attitude is dangerous. Most estimates from reviews of Australia's current system (intake is in the tens of thousands, however arrivals by boat are processed offshore in Nauru or PNG) is that the timeframe from someone seeking assylum to being declined/accepted needs to be about three months or less - any longer and mental health takes a serious toll and children end up being behind in education.

It shouldn't matter - but it does. Native dependencies are pretty important so a lot of effort has gone into solving that issue - but I don't think making Java and Node.js work together well is a high priority for anyone.

That said, closure being in JavaScript has more to do with choosing rhino than anything else. If you were starting a project like closure today you wouldn't use Java.

Re: advanced mode, totally depends on what kind of code you've got. Lots of inlineable functions and constants? Double digits easily. Lots of objects and DOM? 5% better than uglify is optimistic.

Well all those build tools are usually npm packages, and are easily managed as dependencies using package.json (hence why there are so many being used). Adding Java and and a secondary set of dependencies isn't really worth the 5% decrease in minified file size that closure might give you.

I did try to use closure instead of uglify in a project recently - closure was a real pain to deal with compared to tools with equivalent functionality that are written in JavaScript. Cross-language ecosystem tools rarely work well it seems.

The Java requirement is a real pain. If someone made an npm package that took care of the Java requirements, we'd probably all be using Closure rather than something like Uglify. Closure usually does slightly better minification wise, but it's a pain to work with.

Lots of places would be safe during the eruption - just probably not the United States or southern Canada. Humans have survived many super volcanic eruptions before.

The real problem if you survive the eruption would be the decade or so of crazy weather and food shortages, not to mention general unrest.

> even with the best modern (as in today) medicine you have no chance of 130.

We don't know that. Nobody has lived an entire life with modern medicine. So many things such as organ transplants, vaccines, antibiotics, discouragement of smoking, awareness of carcinogens, etc, have been developed since many of the people aged 100 or above were born, or in many cases, were middle aged.

> The question then becomes, if you manipulate your DNA, are you human, or a human subspecies?

That's mostly irrelevant - there is plenty of longevity-related DNA variance within Homo sapiens as it is.

It's true that the oldest verified person lived to 122 years - many of those years lived before antibiotics, before smoking was widely known to be unhealthy, before organ transplants, before widespread use of vaccines. The people on the lists of 'oldest living people' grew up in a significantly tougher world and thus many of their peers probably died young from entirely preventable or curable diseases.

If those people had lived with today's medical technology and knowledge available to them for their whole lives, that list of people living to 110 would be much longer and undoubtedly you'd see an increase in the number of people giving to 120 and probably to 130.

In other words, John Citizen statistically won't live to age 130. Someone who is better off health wise and is less of a risk taker than the average American - I bet given a lifetime of modern day medicine or better, you've got a great shot at 130.

Works great on my iPhone, which is a surprise. Well done!

Great news if you're going to be scraping for recipes - the recipes have Schema.org microdata with nutritional information.

This is just an internship rebranded, right?

...because my understanding of apprenticeships is that they are very very different to this concept (maybe it's different around the world - I'm from Australia).

I though Algorithmia launched years ago?

Sounds like a library like this would be a great place to use ES7 decorators - except that function hoisting spoils the party :(

Unintentionally, this also shows that GitHub is going pretty well when it comes it sanitising user inputs.

Something you don't see everyday (apart from a platypus) - a .asn.au domain name.

The difference between setting some community norms and having a code of conduct seems to be writing it down. And, in writing things down, there's one reference for the rules/guidelines and everyone knows what they are. Is much prefer GitHub to set some rules rather than have year's worth of what would essentially become case law. Plus, community norms aren't exactly working either, so..

Overall, with a bit of editing (perhaps the code of conduct should be rewritten to avoid as many politicised words as possible), I'm not sure where the difference is between a well written code of conduct and a 'be nice' community norm.

I for one read that part of the code of conduct and think of a few grey areas.

I mean, it's not uncommon for people to write 'hugs' or something like that - surely that should be fine (assuming it's not wildly off topic)?

Yeah I don't get the 'textual' descriptions bit - and physical contact doesn't really apply to an online community. I suppose describing sexual contact is probably unwanted, but that's covered under the sexual harassment section.

Still, that dart code looks a lot more complicated than it needs to be. While progress is obviously being made, it doesn't exactly give me confidence in using dart as a compile-to-JS language if it's going to have an overhead because of the addition of a runtime library.

There's what looks like an obviously fake account (lots of 0-star repos with nonsense names) who just started arguing in an issue that privelige doesn't exist and that people are only lazy. That really doesn't help at all, and I'm kinda surprised that it seems as though people are trying to reason with people like that.