vincentdm

Clojure (recently) and PHP (legacy)

Very interesting. Is there a reference implementation or discussion you can link to?

Interesting! I've been playing around with Serverless/Lambda this weekend (the node version), but a main thing that struck me was that I couldn't use a connection pool for database connectivity. This means that each request to a lambda-backed API will need to create new connections.

Anyone who wants to share their thoughts about this?

According to the newspaper, the companies can claim that they were misled by the laws and made their decisions to invest here solely on these laws. So they can also try to claim future costs which are caused by being based in Belgium. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if you're right.

While I would deplore having to hand over more government money to these multinationals (especially since I am a small business owner in Belgium myself), I still believe that the rule of law is more important. These deals shouldn't have existed in the first place, but I think the erosion of trust if they are retracted without compensation is also a grave cost...

I live in Belgium and the news today is that our government will have to pay huge damage claims to these companies for misleading them, which will probably amount to more than the reclaimed tax. Our current government is led by different parties than the ones who introduced the tax loopholes, so you can imagine the fallout and blame game...

I think he means having the servers abstracted away (i.e. not having to maintain them, not knowing how many of them should be running, etc...)

I wonder if all the critical commenters here feel the same about sites sending a verification e-mail before completing your registration. After all, it serves the same purpose of preventing usage of bogus e-mail addresses.

If you're against this kind of library, I suppose you shouldn't bother with verifying e-mail addresses either.

I like this article. I started with React last month, and navigating through the jungle of related technologies (Flux, Redux, Webpack, JSX, Typescript,...) is a real challenge. Most examples use one or several of these, which clouds the understanding. I like it how the author brings it back to basics.

Very nice...

But in the comic I got confused about how the resolver could start communicating with the nameservers, given that they are themselves part of the dnsimple.com domain. Where did it get the IP of the nameservers?

I agree: I have just started using Redux and the new 1.0 API and documentation are great.

However, I am very curious about the long-term* future of Redux now that FB's Relay has landed...

(*) long-term in JavaScript-parlance, meaning more than 2 months ;-)

I recently replaced all my a >= x AND a < y with BETWEEN, and then I realised I got burned by what you describe :-) It's been on the Trello to-do to fix it for weeks...

Please skip/sit through the intro (first minute), after that it gets really interesting. I'm curious about people's opinion from a US perspective...

I agree that the general effect is still dumb, but I meant that the directive isn't as "technologically illiterate as many believe it to be".

I was pleasantly surprised that the legislators were aware of the necessity of cookies for login management. At least it allows me to keep my web app clean of this pollution...

As I understand it (but I am no lawyer), it was only a requirement in the US until 1989. So if you are a company operating outside the US and none of your copyrighted material dates from before that, I don't see why you should include it. Also, for websites there are many more reliable methods of demonstrating the time of creation.

So for some it might have a use, but it seems to me that thousands of webmasters (including myself) have been copying this pre-1989 US-only best-practice, just because it is nice to have something to put it the footer :-)

I also used to hate this directive, but when I read the description on the website of the European Commission, it is actually much more nuanced than I thought:

"However, some cookies are exempt from this requirement. Consent is not required if the cookie is: used for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication, and strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly required by the user to provide that service." Source: http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm#se...

So it turns out the directive isn't as dumb as many believe it to be, but a lot of webmasters wrongly believe that any cookie usage implies having to put up the notice. (Or the nuance was lost on the in-house legal team who briefed the webmaster.)

I run a software-as-a-service company in the EU, but only use cookies for login management. Therefore, I do not need to use the warning. But if I would track my users for advertising etc. I'd have to insert the warning in my web app.

This thoughtless behaviour reminds me of the thousands of websites which include a "(c) YYYY" copyright notice in their footers, despite this being completely irrelevant in modern copyright law.