uk_programmer

I distinctly remember using CDE back in 2005 on a Sun Ray 2 Thin Terminals. It was serviceable however I must confess I had a hard time getting used to it, especially after using Gnome 2 and KDE 3.

The one great thing about them was that you could use a chip and pin style card. If you used this card when logging in it would associate your session with the chip and pin card and when you logged into another client (by using the card) your exisiting session was moved across. Which I thought was pretty novel at the time.

When I have time I might give this a try out (for nothing other than nostalgia reasons).

The vegan food being left at the end is an old photo from a previous disaster.

They said that computer technology would eliminate boring office jobs back in the 1980s and 1990s (when most unskilled labour was still manual). This didn't happen. In fact 100% the opposite happened.

> It fascinates me that so many countries on the planet do things like liberal welfare and 'free' healthcare, yet the richest country in the world by a very wide margin calls it shenanigans.

Have you ever considered that it would contribute to why it is the richest country in the world?

> What you're saying is that your personal "principle" is more important that facts. And it seems you're saying it should be that way for all time because you think your principle is just and right - even if automation replaces a ton of jobs, or even if something else happens so people don't really have to work much anymore, your moral principle demands that everyone work.

They said back in the 80s and 90s The computer revolution would stop end all the office work. Now there are probably more people in offices than ever. I think automation will just create different jobs. Neither you or I will know what those are likely to be.

> Don't you think the world changes and that what worked before isn't necessarily going to work for all time? I mean, read a book about being a good housewife in the '60s if you want to see how far we've come in just 60 years.

The fact of the matter is that it isn't ethical to rely on the good people in the population to work and pay for people that can't be bothered.

> I understand you're a bit put off by people getting "money for nothing" but as I said,

No I find it to be completely unethical.

> maybe the facts here are showing you live a better life because you do pay a little for people to get money for nothing. i.e. crime is lower, people are happier, etc.

I am not living a better life. Things are largely the same for me. Those unwilling to work are living at the taxpayer's expense.

Also I don't care about happiness. There are other things that are more important than happiness. I don't care about my own happiness. Happiness is for children. This is a deeper philosophical question that I will admit I don't have the tooling for. However you keep on saying happiness like I care about it.

Also if you making arguments about Happiness isn't the best way to go on it. There are accounts of slaves being happier being slaves than being free.

> As I showed with facts, it's only 5% of the Australian population who live that way, and of course some of those would only get it until they do find a job. Certainly not all of them are slackers (of course, some are)

I've told you the "facts" are irrelevant to me (and many others). Even if it was 0.01% of the UK I still think it would be wrong. I don't want to pay for people sitting on their behind. So you are forcing me to pay almost half my income for something I deeply disagree with, because not working isn't an option for me and never will be. It has nothing to do with enjoying work or not enjoying it.

> As I said, you need to keep it very clear in your head you are already paying for millions to do exactly that, and society as we know it would utterly crumble if we didn't. Who would pay for prisons, the elderly or handicapped?

I am fine for paying for those things. Because that is what/who the state should be providing for. I am not okay for people sitting on their backside.

I don't care that theoretically there would be less crime. I couldn't care less. Also not having free money doesn't allow you to break the law.

> The part I find most fascinating of all about this is how the media has conditioned people to be outraged about real and everyday people getting "money for nothing" and how they're slackers and are ruining the economy. Two pages later we learn the banks have another multi-billion dollar bailout, large companies are pay extremely little tax.

I haven't been conditioned by anyone to think this. It is incredible insulting to be told by you that I have a problem with something because I been somehow brainwashed. Please keep on having this attitude though because it won't do you any good.

> Two pages later we learn the banks have another multi-billion dollar bailout, large companies are pay extremely little tax.

I agree they shouldn't have been bailed out.

> Rampant inflation or the idea that nobody would go to work are commonly held up as big reasons not to have a UBI (or something similar) so it's important to address those.

You completely missed the point. I am against the principle of me (a tax payer) paying for someone else not working unless they can't work (unable to work). The inflation argument is completely irrelevant.

> If you want to rebut that last point by saying "but I'm not happy (going to work)" then there is an extremely simple answer - Quit.

It is besides the point. The principle is that I earn my way and I stand up on my own two feet. It not about liking work or not liking it. It is entirely besides the point.

> Get the free money and do nothing all the time. Of course I already know you won't do that because it won't make you happy, and you don't want to live on $1k a month (it's good enough, but not great). Plenty of people actually do try it for a while (I did)... and then they come back to paid work again because overall for 95% of people (as proved by evidence) life is better.

This is why it is irritating arguing with people like yourself. It isn't about the facts. It is about the principle. When I am working I don't want to be paying my tax for someone sitting on their behind.

> Remember, US tax payers are spending literally trillions of dollars on wars and bailing out banks (again)... would you rather the Australian government spend those tax dollars that way, or spend it on improving the lives of Australians who are in Australia?

Just because banks got bailed out in the past (which was wrong) doesn't mean it is okay to do something else that isn't ethical.

> You're gonna pay one way or another.

Only because nonsense like this is allowed.

> Some costs will be more monetary, some will be more health/crime-related, etc, but very few of us live in countries where there is a general desire and will to force people to work.

You should be looking for work. If you haven't tried looking for a job you get your benefits removed. Obviously the Elderly and Disabled should get help but healthy people should be looking for work if they aren't employed.

> What exactly do you suggest as the alternative?

Get a job.

> Yes, there are people that do exactly that, and probably will for all time. Has it ruined the Australian economy? nope. Has there been rampant inflation? nope.

It is besides the point really isn't it? Why should the tax payer pay for someone sitting on their behind?

Why should I pay for someone else doing nothing? I am close to paying 40% of my income to tax at the moment and I've been saving for a property for years (I earn too much to have any help on buying a flat). What the studies say is absolutely irrelevant because I cannot abide the (lack of) principle itself.

I've been doing .NET for about 10 years and tbh outside of .NET core itself for building web applications and services (not just windows services) I am not massively interested.

I was being rhetorical.

I am going to echo other people's sentiments with this. I am very hesitant to even bother looking at this because it yet another UI platform for Windows.

WPF, UWP, SilverLight, Metro. Am I forgetting any?

> What you're asking is that to ease your job, you give your customers a non-native UX (subjectively "bad", but that judgement is something I think most HN readers would agree with); and you value their computer resources very little (ie you don't respect your users' computers and are happy to waste their computing memory and CPU.)

Frequently the "customer" is a client and not the end user of the app. Assuming that someone doesn't respect someone else's computer because they use a tech that you don't approve of is ludicrous.

> Electron is the solution when a developer values themselves over their customers.

Nope. When you have limited resources i.e. small development teams you have to choose where the effort is going to go. Cross platform tech like Electron allows you to deliver to more customers with (theorectically) less effort, which can be put into many other things that might benefit the customer e.g. cost savings or more features.

> Over time, as the app develops, the attitude of happily giving your user lower UX quality and wasteful applications is harder and harder to justify ethically, though I admit that's only true if predicated on a foundation that you should respect your customer or have pride in your work.

There is so much wrong here. The whole premise makes a lot of assumptions that may not be true. Any Engineering Discipline is about producing a product that adheres to a specific set of specifications. This frequently requires making decisions dependent on budget, technology etc. Unless you have an unlimited budget you will have to make a trade offs. Claiming someone is unethical or doesn't respect their customers / end user because they used a technology you dislike is quite pompous.

I do the same. I have my own for flask website setup with SQLite with user signups etc all configured. I also have some JavaScript SPA projects configured. I can clone the git repo and start doing something useful in a few minutes and all my scaffolding work is done.

While there are scaffolding tools already available sometimes those scaffolds are a bit too bare bones and you need to add some other common bits and pieces.

> I’m not the only one on my race team that would eat rims every year or two.

This really says it all. When I am cycling to work, I am not trying out for the tour de france or trying to beat someone else's strava record.

> Fact is, rim brakes are inferior in every way to just about every alternative, save two: they’re inexpensive and lightweight.

It doesn't matter if they are inferior. My regular disc brakes on my Ford Focus is inferior in every way compared to whatever they put on a Ferrari. However they are perfectly is sufficient and safe for driving to work and back.

The best argument you can make for discs vs traditional rim brakes would be that the modulation is slightly better.

It really annoys me that a lot of cyclists seem to push very expensive kit that for the commuter is completely unnecessary.

> Ignore this comment.

Why because you don't agree with it?

> Is it overkill not to burn through a set of rims each winter?

I dunno how you are doing this. A set of brake pads last quite a while usually. I have rims from the 1990s I am still using.

> Is it overkill to have decreased stopping distance in the rain?

Your stopping distance is more about how much grip you got on the road from the tyres. You can easily lock the wheel with a rim brake, especially if you have a good set of dual pivot or V-brakes.

For commuting you don't need anything flashy or complicated (because it will be a magnet for thieves). I literally get a basic but decent bike. If the parts are basic and ubiquitous you can go to any bike shop and get it repaired or by the parts yourself. If you have fancy equipment, then it more difficult to buy a replacement.

When I was commuting on the bike still, I used an old 90s mountain bike with V-brakes and I converted it to Single Speed (the gears were knackered) and stuck some touring tyres on there. However I was cycling in Manchester which is mostly flat. It really depends where you are.

I live in the UK and rim brakes are fine in even heavy rain. What they are not fine with is mud and grit on the rim.

I do use a touring bike (basically a racing bike that isn't quite as aggressive) and I've ridden that all year round.

As someone that used to be an avid cyclist. Disc brakes are almost completely pointless for commuter bicycles. Don't get me wrong they are great when mountain biking (I have cable discs on my mountain bike). On a commuter bike they are mostly just overkill IMHO. But I wouldn't buy a carbon road bike either (All my bikes are steel framed).

Yes. Huge amounts of it. It is less relevant as time goes on but almost every .NET job will require you using some VB.NET.

What did zombie movies say about the 2000s? Nothing really.

Christopher Nolan’s dark night trilogy proved that these films can make money and be critically acclaimed.

Also is it really a craze? Christopher Reeves Superman was pretty popular so was Spider-Man and the Hulk when I was a kid. There were loads of movies and tv shows in the 80s and 90s with super heroes. I actually can't remember a time when they weren't popular.

The only difference now is Marvel is raking in at the box office. Is anyone else actually making money? DC aren't.

Offence can only be taken and is wholly subjective as this whole thread has proven. It is unfortunate that this caused her upset but it was neither the intent or at all cause of it. The cause of her upset is the fact that her friend had passed away. She could have been reminded of her bereavement from something entirely different.

It wouldn't be it was/is a fad? In the 2000s there was literally a zombie movie coming out every week it seemed. In the UK there was load of movies about the UK "underworld" e.g. Football Hooligans, Drug Dealers, Gangstars and Illegal fights (Layer Cake, Snatch, Rock and Rolla, Green Street, Football factory, The Business and my favourite Sexy Beast).

There is generally a new film genre that does really well and people copy it chasing the money as people tend to want more initially until it is played out.

> Is it "fair" to profiteer because you're the only provider of something people need?

Generally No it shouldn't be socialised. If it isn't a monopoly of efficiency another company should be able to provide a product/service at a lower price. All you are doing it indirectly passing on the cost to the tax payer by subsidising it.

Obviously there are some exceptions to this depending on things like politics of a region (where a resource/service can be monopolised) e.g. rural areas. That is where a cooperative run by the local community might be better.

Yes. However you can for example do the following in typescript:

    function someFunction(obj?:DuckType) {
        //Snip other logic
        someOtherFunction(obj);
    }

    function someOtherFunction(obj:DuckType) {

    }

The type checker catch that. So you still have to do:

    function someFunction(obj?:DuckType) {
        obj = obj || { /* set some object properties */
        //Snip other logic
        someOtherFunction(obj);
    }

    function someOtherFunction(obj:DuckType) {

    }

I have found plenty of examples where people haven't set a default value because the compiler hasn't flagged anything wrong with the code and you get an uncaught reference error.

Sorry to be pedantic but that isn't quite right. I do use the same technique myself quite a lot with the options pattern.

However it is worth keeping the following in mind. The compiler will check that in your code that these properties are present and assigned correctly. However at runtime nothing is guaranteed especially when dealing with the DOM.

One of the things that I don't like about TypeScript (I have written a fair bit of it) is that you believe you have type safety when it is really type hinting.

I thought I heard on the radio they shut the entire border. It seems they shut the border with China after doing a quick web search.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/30/russia-closes-2700-mile-borde...

I don’t think Russia has ever claimed to have no homosexuals. I think you are confusing it with maybe Brunei.

That not not really that relevant.

Russia shutdown its borders pretty much straight away and IIRC they have hardly any cases.

Cargo-culting can sometimes be okay. I normally have to work on large legacy code bases and sometimes it is simply better to try to copy something similar in the codebase in terms of functionality and try to follow the structure of what went before. Without documentation it is sometimes the only way to udnerstand the codebase. Especially when people have (ab)used reflection or dependency injection.

> I'm not sure what you mean - what choice do you have?

I can choose not to interact with their platform at all. I can also find other ways of interacting with them in other ways (scraping or headless browser automation).

> Also this isn't much (if any?) of an API change, it's a policy change. And even then it doesn't look like it should negatively affect you unless you were doing something nefarious already.

If you are investing time and effort into an endeavour (whatever it is) it helps to know whether ground is likely to disappear from under you.

Microsoft while many people don't like them have kept many ancient APIs working e.g. We have code from 2005 that still works with the latest .NET Runtime with rather minimal changes. This provides you with confidence that going forward you won't face a lot of churn.

Policies while they aren't APIs are important in that they are both clear, applied fairly and don't change on a whim. A lot of people are sceptical that Twitter will do any of those based on previous behaviour.