trgv

That's ugly as hell too, but in a way that preserves backwards compatibility.

My feeling is that so many compromises have been made to maintain compatibility in JS/DOM-land that it seems capricious to make this kind of decision now.

Knowing your audience seems really important to this discussion. Those of us with technical knowledge immediately want to know "what does it actually do?"

But there are a lot of decision-makers without technical knowledge who might be swayed by their "general impression of the people they meet." This group doesn't necessarily care if they're in need of what you're selling.

There's a spectrum between these two extremes and how you approach marketing is going to depend on your opinion of how the audience is distributed in this spectrum. If you believe there are more people toward the latter end of the spectrum then a more general, details-free approach may make sense.

Can you elaborate?

But the thing is, just because arrow functions exist doesn't mean people are going to use them. Similarly, just because modern browsers allow "let" and "const" doesn't mean people will stop using "var."

I agree that JavaScript is generally fine if you stick to the new parts of the language, but that in itself is a pretty big problem. Maybe not for me and you, but for software development in JavaScript generally it's really not ideal.

More specifically, I'd say that there are rules based on who you want to please. People who think "X popular fiction is stylistically poor," do think that way for a reason, and you could appeal to them by taking note of that reason and applying it to your writing.

But at the end the day, your reason for thinking that 50 Shades of Grey is bad, or the Nobel committee's reasons for choosing X author (or songwriter) aren't any better or more important than anyone else's reasons for liking what they like and disliking what they dislike.

For me, coming around to this perspective was not a happy experience. I sort-of wish we lived in world where fiction could be objectively judged. For one thing, it would make finding good books a whole lot easier.

Look, I think Nazism is wrong, I think cops should stop shooting black people for no reason, and I don't really know what "Antifa" is. But I think all of these groups should be able to have subreddits.

I could argue about definition here, and based on your own definitions, "Antifa" might be advocating violence. That aside, the real issue here is that this whole thing seems dishonest to me.

Reddit is banning stuff that generates bad PR. They're banning things that aren't mainstream and things that could be portrayed as advocating/glorifying violence. They aren't going to ban a subreddit for advocating war with North Korea/X country. They aren't going to ban a subreddit for encouraging people to beat up Nazis.

Reddit can do what they like, but I think it's a bad call.

I would note that many/most obese people have tried and failed to reduce their weight (or temporarily succeeded). So it's definitely seen as a highly negative trait.

There is a "body positivity" movement here that discourages people from feeling shame about their appearance. Some people see this as a negative thing, with potential health ramifications.

I'd also say that obesity in the US varies quite a bit based on geography and income bracket.

You say this so matter-of-factly but it's actually quite a claim. I think people are right to call you on it.

I understand there is a general feeling that past generations "made do with less" and "had greater moral fiber" and so on, but I'm also a little suspicious of that kind of thinking.

I think there are simpler explanations. I imagine people like the way it tastes plus it's extremely cheap and takes very little time to prepare.

It's just posturing, and "putting Nuclear Bombers on 24-hour alert" is also just posturing.

He says the question is "how can I do better?" That's not the question. The question is, will he be charged, and, if he is, what conclusion will the jury come to?

That's how this system is supposed to work.

Don't get me wrong, I'm hugely in favor of that being added to the language, but I feel like the readme somewhat overstates what this actually is. I may have misunderstood something.

But I don't think they should have been flagged "because I disagree with them."

The evidence is piling up – Silicon Valley is being destroyed (27 points)

Personally I'm glad all of these posts were flagged.

I also think it's unlikely that a future society will allocate resources to revive these people, even if we suppose technology exists and the bodies are well preserved enough. Everyone who knows these people today will surely be dead by that point.

Furthermore, many of the people paying for this seem to believe in the inevitable emergence of a utopian society with unlimited resources, which seems almost a necessary condition for these people to be revived. Personally, I'm not banking on that happening either.

An aside: when I was younger, my brother and I had an idea for a post-apocalyptic short story related to this subject. The plot goes something like this: after the collapse of human civilization, a group of survivors exhaust the remaining food supply and begin to starve until they discover a solar-powered facility full of thousands of perfectly preserved corpses, which (the story would have implied) will feed them for decades to come.

> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Ideological or political battle or talking points. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

This post seems off topic to me. There are a lot of these stories floating around (sadly). They're all over the news.

I also think your suggestion is silly if meant to be taken seriously.

I'm anti-Trump but I'm also anti-politics-at-work. There's no contradiction there.

Anything else is likely to be disruptive to your coworkers.

I have a lot of empathy for people experiencing emotional distress, whatever the reason. I would never complain about them and would do my best to offer sympathy when appropriate. But I really shouldn't be put in that position at work, and if I was emotionally disturbed I would not come into work so as to avoid putting my coworkers in that position.

I think this is all doubly true if we're talking about the results of an election. Some of your coworkers may be happy for the same reason you're upset.

I don't think that stuff has any place at work. It's a red-flag to me if that kind of thing is commonplace in the office. Not only is it distracting, but it's insulting to employees who may have an opposite position politically.

If you're emotionally affected by something to the point where you're unable to hide it, then you shouldn't come into work.

That may be true for now, but there are other advantages that have at least something to do with performance.

For one thing, wasm bytecode can be decoded much faster than JavaScript can be parsed. I'm not really aware of situations when parsing speed is an issue, but I imagine there are situations where this is nice.

In general, it will be easier to add new features to wasm compared to JavaScript. Presumably this means features like threads will land in wasm much sooner than in JavaScript, but we'll see.

One specific example of this is hurricane season in 2017, which many news sources have frequently linked to global warming.

I'm not saying it's impossible that there's a connection, but based on my understanding (pretty much just this [0]), this is not something anyone should be speaking confidently about.

A lot of people seem to have an "ends justify the means" perspective about this stuff: that being right in general about global warming gives them the right to exaggerate in order to stimulate a public response. I'm not really comfortable with that thinking.

[0] https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

I find myself wondering what exactly differentiates a "government" from a "family council" or "tribal leadership" or whatever other phrase you want to use to describe an "authority-wielding-body with a monopoly on force."

I think "governments" are as old as people, and probably older. Many social animals have leaders who dominate the rest of the herd.

My feeling is that governments have always been here, they've just gotten bigger and maybe a little more sinister.

To put this another way, imagine someone takes whatever dose of psilocybin and then is rendered unconsciousness until the perceptual effects wear off. Will there be any difference in its effectiveness as a treatment for depression?

This is an anecdote, not a rule. It's good that no one is judging this guy based on his accent, but that doesn't mean no one ever has or no one ever will. I guarantee some people will hear his accent and subconsciously (usually) form an opinion based on it.

Scott is an interesting filmmaker. Blade Runner and Alien are two of the best films ever made in my opinion. Everything else he's done is amateurish in comparison (also in my opinion), even the successful/fun stuff.

This makes me wonder whether there's something behind the greatness of those two films other than his direction. Maybe the writer/crew/cast/studio/producers had more power in his earlier films and used that power wisely?

There's an interesting passage on the wikipedia article for Alien:

> Scott had wanted the Alien to bite off Ripley's head and then make the final log entry in her voice, but the producers vetoed this idea as they believed the Alien should die at the end of the film.

All that aside, it's not always clear who "owns" a film. The director tends to get a lot of credit, but film-making is collaborative, and who's to say that the screenwriter doesn't get to decide what the film is really about?

When they offered this songwriter some % of song royalties, they knew ahead of time that it wasn't going to be a whole lot of money.

Solution? Songwriters need a new metric to charge by.

One problem, though, is that perhaps songwriting isn't actually worth that much. When you look at a performer like Justin Beiber, how much of his income depends on specific songs that he's putting out? I'm not sure, but I don't necessarily think it's a large amount.