73 karma · joined February 25, 2021
I know this is old: https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.ht...
but has the situation changed substantially in favor of Firefox?
What's the difference between "executing arbitrary code inside the sandbox via a crafted HTML page" and running whatever is in the <script> tag?
It's the same with Unicode encoding of Cyrillic letters - й (U+0439) can be written as й (и U+0438 + ◌̆ U+0306)
> Interestingly — and not many know this — Unicode includes separate codepoints for all of the digraphs too. While well-intentioned, it only makes the problem worse.
Based on your description it seems that the root cause of the issues is using two letters to represent the digraph - for example N (U+004E) J (U+004A) instead of NJ (U+01CA) - and the sorting issues would be identical if people typed Н (U+041D) Ь (U+042C)instead of Њ (U+040A).
What's the reason for the digraph being substituted by 2 letters in the first case more often than in the second case?
I've heard this claim many times but never the reasoning behind it - by what metric is "ш" superior to "š" and so on?
My German is pretty rusty, why exactly is it unambiguous?
I don't see how changing the noun would make a difference. "Ich sehe" followed by any of these: "den Mann mit dem Fernglas", "die Frau mit dem Fernglas", "das Mädchen mit dem Fernglas" sounds equally ambiguous to me.
>Now, given two log files (log file from day 1 and log file from day 2) we want to generate a list of ‘loyal customers’ that meet the criteria of: (a) they came on both days, and (b) they visited at least two unique pages.
It appears to me that the requirement could be interpreted as either:
"(visit on day 1) AND (visit on day 2) AND (total unique pages count > 2)"
a clearer way to put it would be "visited at least two unique pages in total"
or "(visit at least two unique pages on day 1) AND (visit at least two unique pages on day 2)"
a clearer way to put it would be "visited at least two unique pages on each day"
Hostname can be skipped in file URI and localhost will be assumed, maybe that's what the author meant.
Why is the logo (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/google/wuffs/main/doc/logo...) no longer shown in the readme?
I was pretty sure I had heard of the project before but I had to find the logo to be absolutely certain, it's truly one of a kind.
To keep things simple: democracy -> majority rule
republic -> majority rule + no inheritance of public offices (so no monarch)
Of course it can get more complicated than that - democracies can differ in terms of who can and cannot vote, freedom of press, how exactly the separation of powers is handled (or if the powers are separated at all), what method is used to distribute seats in the parliament, how much power is held by the president and how much is held by the prime minister etc.
By that definition US and UK are both (representative) democracies but of these two only the US is a republic and UK is a parliamentary ("constitutional" sounds pretty weird in this context given that there is no codified constitution) monarchy (while still being a democracy).
If not, then what are the differences between republic described by Madison and representative democracy?
curl <pasta url> | html2text | less
Just to be sure ;)
I'm criticizing SQL as a language which is lacking in composability (as opposed to criticizing relational algebra or relational data model).
Libraries for working with SQL (full-fledged ORMs or simpler query builders) are themselves written in a different language so they don't necessarily prove anything about SQL itself, though one could argue that if people want to use them then they might not be satisfied with raw SQL.
> And even across vastly different domains, even if not directly reusable, SQL queries are still highly transferable.
That's the point, they are probably transferable in the "copy, paste and tweak" sense which would be highly frowned upon in other popular languages.
> But which data/processing related tasks is SQL a very poor fit for?
I specifically called SQL "a DSL for data processing", I probably should have written "there are many domains that SQL is a very poor fit for" to be more clear.
>In my experience it's much more common to actually see the opposite - inefficient usage of ORMs, exporting datasets only to then perform pre/postprocessing, often requiring building programming "jigs" to circumvent bottlenecks, etc when it could've been done in a more streamlined manner in the DB/warehouse.
Totally agree. Lukas Eder has some nice presentations about it.
I mostly agree, though I think that SQL's popularity comes mostly from network effects.
> Yeah and what's wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong wrong with that. I just think that it's reasonable to interpret the words "programming in the large" as "being usable as general purpose programming language" (which I admit is not a very strict definition) whereas SQL (or XSLT or awk or bash...) seem well suited for certain niches (important niches nonetheless).
SQL is basically a DSL for data processing just like XSLT for example. Would you call XSLT "designed for large scale programming"?
The "they will not be very productive with it" comment is a bit of a stretch - it can be very productive in the domain it is designed for - but you can often replace SQL at its job (like for example use Dataframe API in Spark instead of SQL API) while there are many tasks that SQL is a very poor fit for.