Since you’re getting troll comments from right wingers I’ll try to give an actual answer
Feinstein was no longer mentally fit to serve in office. She was essentially the pre-cursor to a weekend at Bernie’s setup. She was not cognitively present enough to vote on legislation or even hold a conversation.
People are glad she passed because it means her seat is open to someone who can actually work on policy and benefit their constituents.
Liberals are not exactly a fan of letting the elderly die in office after the RBG situation that ended up with a stacked court when she had the option to retire under Obama.
Also Lemmy has definitely been having more right wing trolls recently and it’s making me want to use the platform less.
They weren’t making a point, they were parroting a cliche that they’ve used so many times before, that they don’t even wait for the proper context before reusing it again.
Sir, you can drop the personal attacks, I already said I’m not a rightoid or anywhere near there.
I have a personal friend, grew up on a cattle ranch, best friend was a black kid that worked with him. He voted republican all the time because he (wrongly) thought they represented his way of life.
Some loser like you comes along and calls him a racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam does absolutely nothing but undo years of work trying to drag him to the light. You’re acting as ignorant as he is.
At this point anyone who still willingly voted for the Republican Party is explicitly endorsing those ideals. Ignorance is not an excuse. If you vote for American republicans you’re outwardly and explicitly condoning those behaviors.
It’s not my job to make them feel comfortable. If they support those policies they’re not worth the breath it would take to try to explain it.
Let me repeat it. Ignorance is not an excuse.
Also the only one resorting to personal attacks is you
No, because that’s all false generalizations. But you know that and aren’t looking for conversation, you just want some gotcha moment.
Drag is not inherently sexual, and family friendly drag shows are not sexual at all, despite the lies you e been told.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at. We’re all very well aware the dnc is as corrupt as the rnc, but one side actively works against the interest of minorities and one doesn’t.
I feel nobody should own guns and we’d all be safer for it. There’s no reason anyone needs a gun except to defend themselves from another gun, which wouldn’t be a problem if we had any kind of common sense gun laws.
Given that we (unfortunately) exist in a two party system, it’s either one or the other bud, and I think we all know which answer is actually true to your beliefs lol
And before you respond with “I was just mocking the guy above me”. The fact that your whole post history is mocking democrats, and never Republicans says all you need to know lol
I mean, there’s not a lot of repubs to engage with on this platform. But you’re right, we exist in a two party system and both parties are too far right for me to vote for either.
Doesn’t stop me from calling out conservatives that vindicate themselves by voting D.
As someone who leans left and hates the GOP, you’re absolutely right. Lemmy is an echochamber full of a lot of nonsense that limits it’s potential and just causes more division and problems.
There’s a difference between discussion with differing opinions and simple trolling to rile people up. Posting things as though they are settled fact without willingness to be argued against is bad faith trolling. We should ban/exterminate X class of people is also trolling since it puts an impossibly wide brush to a group based on some singular characteristic.
Edit: I may have confused this with another asking about finding ‘correct non-MSM sources’ and posting stories about ‘vaccine bad’ and ‘masks cause brain damage’, but I’ll leave it in case those are still up elsewhere and say if I did mix it up then mea-culpa.
I’m willing to take the notion that there’s an honest intent. The major problem I would see is that in looking for ‘non MSM’ sources isn’t in looking for alternative views, it’s in looking for a confirmation bias fulfilling source. Scientific reporting becomes ‘mainstream’ through a consensus on facts pushing the reported version to the front page.
You would be hard pressed to find someplace that says asbestos, lead paint, and cigarettes are good and healthy things for anyone, but I’m sure if you look really hard some ‘non-MSM’ source would put together a story of why they in fact make for a fine breakfast cereal. Things such as one of the first posts you made regarding ‘masks kill brain cells’ fall into the same category. Somebody with a personal ax to grind will inevitably find reason to claim they are bad, but the overwhelming normalization of their use in medical facilities by people far more knowledgeable than you or I, very well educated people who’s very profession is to study these things, makes any such claims as you made sit out in the lunatic fringe side of conversations.
Unfortunately, there are a good number of people out there gullible enough to be baited by such things, for example see the whole ‘QAnon’ fiasco, and putting such things out there is a net bad for society. Social media for all it’s uses also allows followers of absurd theories to reinforce each other’s beliefs where previously such things would be left to die in darkness.
Don’t you know, proof is optional for the republicans?
They’re trying to impeach without proof, they’ve lied through their teeth every single day they’ve been in office. Proof doesn’t matter, and despite their favorite saying being “facts don’t care about your feelings” they don’t need facts
Actually their belief in inversely proportional to proof. The more proof you have, the less they believe it. The less proof you have, the more you believe it.
I got banned from there for posting a verbatim Trump tweet with no words of my own included. Never seen a bigger group of melting snowflakes in my life than the "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd.
Oh and like it was any different going into r/politics ya joker. Preach to your crowd, you’re still surrounded by groupthink in your safe space don’t worry.
She was also more of a neoliberal centrist, and had some moments that were, at best, terrible optics. She condescendingly admonished some kids asking her about her stance on climate change. As mayor of San Francisco, she defended flying the Confederate Flag as part of a monument to American Historical Flags. Then when a black man climbed the pole in a Union uniform to tear it down, she replaced it the next day. So he climbed the pole the next day and took it down again, and he was arrested. She put it back up the third day and posted guards to keep it up. She later “evolved” on the issue of flying the Confederate flag.
As mayor, she was violently anti-punk music, and was considered far more conservative than her predecessor. She became mayor after her predecessor was assassinated by political rival and former police officer, who also killed Harvey Milk in the same shopting. The assassin was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and served 5 years in prison. Her administration was notably friendlier to police and real estate development.
Did I mention she made millions of dollars in real estate and investments? After the 2022 death of her third husband, her net worth was estimated at around $90 million, making her one of the top 5 or so wealthiest Senators. I say “or so” because it’s really hard to pin down how much Senators have or what they earn, and there are alarmingly few regulations regarding disclosures of investments in the Senate. Feinstein sat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
In 2013, she blamed the Sandy Hook shootings on violent video games.
And when it became obvious that she was no longer in control of her mental faculties, she refused to step down.
Sounds like the newspaper was investigating the police chief and the chief in turn violated their rights and caused the 98 yr old co-owner to die in the process:
The one wrinkle in this story so far is that they ALSO raided a city council member (https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article278220882.html). That council member also received the documents the newspaper were sent and she notified someone in the city executive. That was also a baseless warrant. And the county attorney who drafted the warrant and sent it to the incompetent judge is the brother of drunk Karen's restaurant landlord. There's more to be said about what is going on, but there's a whole lot of absolute incompetence in addition to malice.
So I’m just slightly confused. They were investigating the police chief while simultaneously also dealing with the drunk Karen restauranteur? Seems like the police were issued a warrant to raid the homes per the restauranteur investigation? Does anyone understand the connection with the police chief or am I just being dense?
I was being dense haha. I wasn’t thinking police would actually be that opportunistic, but of COURSE they are. Especially small town Kansas. Gestapo shit.
Same boat: people who hate typescript and therefore ensuring type safety probably also hate unit tests because they are too inconvenient to awesome rockstar developers.
One hundred percent this. It reeks of the kind of ego you get from devs that think their code is so perfect it’s inherently easily maintainable.
I know junior devs that don’t struggle with types and unit testing—any dev that thinks they’re too good for either is immediately sub-junior in my assessment, because they’re clearly unable to write code intended to be maintained by a team.
I know you’re joking, but this isn’t even true. The feedback loop that you get from pre-written tests in watch mode is pretty much instantaneous. This helps me to arrive at the correct solution much more quickly than trying to validate each case as I go.
I think it’s more of a JSDoc > TS thing. I need to check the drama, but I don’t believe anyone would want to write vanilla JS without some type declarations…
Lmao I’ve literally had conversations with people who have asked me to not be as rigorous with unit tests because you have to change some tests when you make a modification to the business logic.
I love unit tests but I hate the eternal struggle behind them.
We should make unit tests so we can tell when the build runs that the app is going to be consistent
Everyone cheers
We lose a sprint setting up unit tests
Oh this one test just went yellow, somebody spends a few hours figuring it out and finds that it’s a bug in the unit test. No no we’re good That’s just a bug in the unit test we’ll plan to fix that in the next Sprint.
Oh look now this unit test is going red we’re blocked. 2 hours later they find out that it’s a real problem but it’s not so bad that it overrides current feature work. Well we’re going to need to override that and we’ll have to fix it in the next sprint.
Unit test failures slowly degrade in priority to try to get feature work done. You end up with a backlog full of yellow and red known problems and no one pays any attention to you that tests anymore.
If I’m writing a Go app with a JS frontend component but then I decide to use Typescript, suddenly I have NPM, Node, and realistically probably some JS build system like Grunt as dependencies of my project.
Basically, it just adds more moving parts to the project when I could get away with a) a simpler build process and b) less separation between me and the browser.
To be fair, I’ve never used TypeScript, but this is what’s kept me from using TypeScript.
You are making a lot of false assumptions about typescript and bringing in a lot of outside problems that don’t have anything to do with the language. Try working with typescript. It is a strict super set of javascript. So if you like vanilla JS, you can just keep writing it, then slowly introduce the syntactic sugar that typescript provides. I did the javascript and coffee script thing for a long while, and typescript is just the better way for most use cases at this point.
problems that don’t have anything to do with the language.
My concerns about it don’t have anything to do with the language. More the tooling that would come with it.
If browsers natively understood TypeScript, I’d use the type-safety features. But I don’t want things like the TypeScript compiler or Node to be a dependency of my build process. Not if the only payoff is type safety.
For your Go code to be useful, you’ve got to set up the Go compiler right?
As much as I wouldn’t recommend it, you can even install the typescript compiler via an OS package manager (at least in most Debian distributions)
At that point (and once you’ve added it to your makefile, or however else you’re triggering your go build), surely then there’s zero additional moving parts needed to compile your front end vs your backend?
Not least of all, I’d argue having a compiler tell me I messed up immediately is a bonus too vs poking around for some time until I get an error in the JS console
I’m definitely not saying I don’t know how I’d go about adding TypeScript to my build process if I wanted to. (Though I might should mention that I don’t usually use any build system that isn’t just straight up part of the Go compiler. go generate specifically.) But it’s one more thing (actually at least 2 more things – the TypeScript compiler and Node, and that’s if you’re not counting the package manager) that I’d need to keep up to date and hunt down backwards incompatible changes or bugs when updating breaks my build.
There are dependencies that are pretty much absolutely necessary (the compiler or interpreter, depending on language, obviously), and if you need a feature badly enough that in practice isn’t worth writing yourself (and isn’t in the standard library), but beyond that you just kindof have to evaluate what dependencies are worth adding and what aren’t. I definitely fall on the side of eschewing dependencies in most optional situations just because adding dependencies willy-nilly has burned me so many times (though I do usually do JS/HTML/CSS minifying).
Meanwhile, build-time type safety isn’t a substitute for (automated and/or manual) testing. And whether the benefits of build-time type safety are worth the drawbacks of having TypeScript/Node/whatever is a calculation everyone has to do. Plus, let’s be honest, there are plenty of other dependences one could add for which the argument is at least as strong as for TypeScript. If you’re using TypeScript, then why not jQuery and Vue and Underscore and Handlebar and Backbone and Grunt and Require and Bower and most importantly these seven jQuery plugins etc? In proactice the alternatives aren’t so much “basically no JS-related dependencies” vs “basically no JS-related dependencies other than TypeScript.” They’re more “basically no JS-related dependencies” vs “a veritable menagerie of JS dependencies.”
What I’m going for here is also about opting out of the samsara that is the ever changing fashion-of-the-week in JS development. And about the only way to do that is to just opt not to use JS dependencies. (Not to say one would have to be absolutist about it. You could say “TypeScript and that’s all,” but if you’re drawing a line, why not draw it one dependency earlier?)
I usually write Typescript with Vue and SSR so my server and client are using the same tooling. If I was writing a basic frontend with minimal JavaScript I would just (and have) use jsdoc for typing.
But let’s be fair, what you mentioned as dependencies are development dependencies and don’t impact the end user (outside of poorly optimized build systems causing issues). Build systems can have some great benefits. Such as reducing file size by utilizing methods such as tree shaking to prune out the unused classes in a CSS library.
It just comes down to choosing the tools to suit the job. Sure, you can use a table saw to cut a stick but it’s probably easier just to use a handsaw. Whereas if you’re cutting a large plywood board you could make do with a handsaw but it’ll take longer and the result might not be pretty.
They do if I the developer am spending time maintaining my dependencies rather than implementing feature X that the end user wants.
Build systems can have some great benefits.
As does not having multiple distinct yet interacting build systems in one project.
unused classes in a CSS library.
I have yet to have a use for any CSS libraries. Maybe that has more to do with the problem domain in which I write than anything. Maybe some day I’ll run into a situation where I feel I’d be better served using a CSS library, but it hasn’t happened yet.
I feel like (and it was created by Microsoft which would support this) the purpose of TypeScript is to make web development palatable for C#/C++/Java developers.
I don’t know, those language are more difficult than Javascript. What makes FE difficult are the libraries and frameworks, and the artistic aspect of the whole thing.
Honestly, it’s a shame that Typescript is used as “a way to make Javascript tolerable”. Its type system is actually very cool and allows for some very interesting expressions and guarantees that are difficult to achieve in most other languages
We should just let the browser execute TypeScript so we can rid ourselves of the JS mess. That would also be the perfect time to do some cleanup of old, abandoned JS features.
Honestly I’m surprised Microsoft isn’t pushing for that already. They already have a decently popular browser (Edge), they own TS, and they have a history with not giving a shit about standards (IE and ActiveX).
Their browser and the V8 JavaScript engine is pretty much Chrome with some bits and pieces. I don’t think they’re ready to add a whole new scripting language just yet.
I think the web peeps are working on adding TypeScript-style typing to Javascript, but only as annotations, so the types wouldn’t actually be checked.
She isn’t hated by the far left any more than any other neo-lib.
She’s hated because she needed to retire decades ago. Senate Judiciary confirmations have completely stalled because she hasn’t been healthy enough to attend hearings. Trump stacked federal judgeships with unqualified partisan hacks and democrats have been unable to respond. The senate needs her vote to maintain their majority, and her health issues effectively loses the democrats majority. She is clearly senile and confused at all of her recent public appearances.
They literally wheeled her out into Congress like two weeks ago. It was friggin sad. Do these people take a blood sacrifice to stay in office until they’re dead or something?
So, don't get me wrong, she sucked in many ways. I've wanted her out for a long time. But this is actually a problem for us as I understand it. The Dems got any judgeships because of her decrepit self and her seniority in the judiciary committee, and I believe the committee now devolves to Republican leadership, meaning no more judges at all.
I would note that the USA is about the only place this is actually possible.
In pretty much all other democracies, if the parliament fails to pass the budget bill, it triggers a dissolution of both houses and an election is held.
It’s been progressively getting worse over the past few years as they’ve continued to “optimize” their search engine for more ad placement and sponsored content. I’d say these past few months, it’s become borderline unusable for finding actual information.
This is the thing. It really has become unusable. Trying to find obscure information is insane no matter the keywords. It’s always the same results and, ugh, YouTube videos. You can’t find parts for older stuff easily, simple answers are gone.
Amazon is similar. Change the keywords all you like you still will get the same ‘amazon choice’ products and recommended alternatives for whatever you searched for lead to the same list. But i have to agree it really got worse unreasonably fast last few months.
TLDR: This is a 2019 law passed by Congress during the baby hands administration. The Biden administration has been pretty careful not to overstep other branches of government(I think as a direct response to how flagrantly and harmfully baby hands used executive action), and while Biden returned wall money taken from the DoD, the rest of the wall money was explicitly designated by Congress for building the border wall in 2019 and Congress will not cancel that legislative order(wall funds), despite Biden asking Congress to cancel the 2019 wall funds law since arriving in office in 2020.
The money is being legally used for a legislatively required purpose and any federal laws are being broken legislatively by Congress as a result of baby hands in 2019, not the Biden administration.
any federal laws are being broken legislatively by Congress as a result of baby hands in 2019, not the Biden administration.
How can congress legally break federal laws? I understand that the money is allocated, but how can the money have even been allocated toward something that was breaking laws in the first place?
The executive branch has to deal with how to execute laws passed, even when they are in conflict with one another. So there is a lot of leeway provided to deal with those conflicts.
It’s hard to say exactly how necessary it is for the DHS to waive these 26 laws, but the argument is that in order to abide by the more pressing matter (the immigration laws and funding), they must ignore the other 26.
I am not as willing to concede that this is entirely out of the Biden administrations control. Instead of waiving all the 26 laws, why not use them to drag out the time and costs? They are mainly be about environmental studies, public feedback, and other measures that soak up funds and take a lot of time. If this administration was truly serious about not wanting to build the wall, they’re basically going against that by fast-tracking it.
I’m much more inclined to think there is a quid pro quo going on and them giving in on the wall - especially in this particular manner - is in exchange for something else. But that’s not something political leaders will be transparent about. We see checkers, but a chess game is happening (out of our vision).
Not a legal expert, but often certain laws have to be broken for others to be enacted.
4th amendment unreasonable search and seizure is waived by the TSA, for example.
To build 20 miles of ineffective wall legally voted for and funded by Congress(by us, though) that disrupts the ecosystem, the Homeland Security Secretary(in the executive branch) has waived the affected envuronmental laws to allow the wall’s legally mandated construction.
Biden could probably write enough executive orders that he could get the funding to go somewhere else, but that would cause innumerable breaches of power and constitutional imbalances, and we didn’t elect a king, we elected a president who is meant to be in charge of only one branch of the government, something cheeto didn’t understand.
Even though Biden has said he doesn’t believe the wall helps with immigration, he’s not going to overstep his role in the executive branch in this case to interfere with Congress, I suspect as a deliberate response to constant cheeto interference in other branches of government during the last administration.
One thing we can do better as opponents of Trump (or anyone else for that matter) is to not go for the low hanging fruit of things the man can't change about himself. Like his hands. Or the alleged size of, well, you know.
His fake tan or hair are better targets, at least he chooses that part of his appearance, but I'd like to think we can do better than that as well. A grey (or brown) area is his alleged incontinence which, if it's real (and I really, really wouldn't want to check that), it's said he ultimately did it to himself. Could be a target, but also probably best avoided.
Now. His policies. His wrong-thinking. Anything that might harm or put people in danger? Sure. Go nuts. Tear the man a new one.
The low-hanging fruit does have the benefit of riling him and his less intelligent advocates, but as the man himself would do in a similar situation, those are the things to bring out at the end of an argument when you feel like you're losing or at least not getting through a thick skull ... metaphorically speaking. And preferably after they've already done the same.
The hands nickname has upset more people than I would have thought, but do his hands even look tiny to you?
I used it here as a reference for him because he doesn’t deserve a proper name, because of his constant body shaming toward others and his apparent insecurity toward his normal-sized hands.
I still personally think equal treatment is more fair than protecting belligerents, but I have agreed to stop using cheeto’s hands nickname in this community at the request of other users here.
Vlemmy.net was my first home instance. The admin was responsive, transparent, and, most importantly for me, had a fairly absolutist perspective on free speech, refusing to defederate with anything at all, preferring to leave the choice up to the user. Unfortunately for him and the users, the Irish government, where Vlemmy.net was hosted, has a less favorable view of certain communities that it inevitably federated with.
Because federation causes copies of content to be saved to each federated instance, he wound up finding out that certain communities hosted content that, once saved onto HIS server, would get him sentenced to the Irish equivalent of “Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison”. He defederated those instances, but the next day, Vlemmy.net was all but gone. His payment sites for donations now all lead to closed accounts, and I have not heard anything about anyone getting in contact with him.
The common understanding is that he got spooked by the potential legal ramifications, and either got a visit from the Irish authorities or was afraid of that possibility, and so chose to pre-emptively pull the plug. This all occured roughly two weeks ago.
That’s the issue with not defederating from some truly vile, reprehensible instances. It allows their users and content to potentially flood yours which is why there should be exceptions.
Lol, what taxes do you think the lemmy 8mstance would be paying? Ireland is not a tax haven and hasn’t been for quite a while. It does have a moderately low, but non zero, company tax rate, but that’s like saying Texas is a tax haven as their income tax is not the same as California.
Ireland has a well educated young workforce and is in the eu with ties to the USA and speaks English. It’s not odd that tech companies are there. It’s not shell companies there, it’s tech hubs.
I should have clarified that I think Ireland is a tech hotbed for tax reasons, not that the Lemmy instance is there for tax reasons. I’m not trying to discredit the educated workforce in Ireland but I often see the words “taxes” and Ireland together when talking about the large tech companies.
if you set up a shop and the rules are “anything goes”, the people that it will attract are people that were shown the door everywhere else. that’s because unless they are able to set up their own place, they have nowhere else to go. i understand this is motivated by anti-censorship views, but there are beneficial, noncontroversial kinds of censorship. nobody seems to be clutching their pearls when spambots, pedos, impersonators or isis recruitment videos are banned. it’s usually called “functional moderation”
i’m being charitable there and not assuming that it was weirdo instance from the get go. they should have however considered that scenario and maybe set up everything in a place that doesn’t seem to particularly care about content they had, whatever that was
this, along with nazi bar scenario, seems to be a very good argument for swift and preemptive defederation policies
The day before it went down he posted that it was brought to his attention that animated content was illegal in his country. All of this could have been avoided if he properly researched his country’s laws before inviting all this.
It’s not that the people on vlemmy were “shown the door” everywhere else. It was merely the people who decided they wanted to choose for themselves which doors they would enter, and not be told by an admin they couldn’t enter certain doors. The instance I’m on now isn’t defederated with anything either, and if it ever does, I’ll find a new one that doesn’t. I don’t like being told which parts of the internet I’m not intelligent enough to decide for myself about how I feel. I can curate my own feed by simply blocking communities I don’t like, or by only subscribing to ones I do and browsing the Subscribed feed. I get burggit.moe and lemmygrad.ml and exploding-heads and all the other ones people don’t like, and if I see a community on any of them I don’t like, then it’s MY job to block it from my view, not an admins. I respect those who would like a more curated experience and there are instances for that, but don’t assume everyone who is in support of completely open federation is a pedo, nazi, socialist, fascist, or ANYTHING else. It just means they want to decide for themselves.
vlemmy wasn’t shown the door anywhere, but instead vlemmy wasn’t showing the door to anyone either. i can block exploding heads and such, but this only prevents me from seeing their rancid behaviour, it’s still there. for the same reason in fb private groups if you block admins it’s customary to ban you, because everything you do flies under their radar
you might block exploding-heads; but they will influence people that didn’t, and you’ll have no idea. i don’t think it’s practical approach to moderation and community building. exploding-heads were defederated from .world for exact this reason: they would say “oh if this bothers you just block them” but this misses the point completely. they went there to recruit new people and weren’t concerned too much about contributing, instead they saw .world entirely as pool of people yet to be radicalized. if you blocked them as they wanted, that would just decrease their criticism
and that was just a single instance with 30? fuckups to its name when it happened. vlemmy was willingly getting in contact with many more, this is not sustainable. yes, not giving nazis a platform is a good idea, i thought it was already common knowledge
It’s not about you feeling like a big kid or feeling over protected. It’s not the subscriber that is left sitting with a server full of illegal material if someone subscribes to that sort of content, it’s the instance owner, and they will be the ones that end up risking prison
If you want federation with everything, then make your own instance which hosts copies of child abuse, terrorist and hate material. But don’t criticise admins for not wanting to risk jail time so you can feel uncensored.
It was merely the people who decided they wanted to choose for themselves which doors they would enter, and not be told by an admin they couldn’t enter certain doors.
I don’t like being told which parts of the internet I’m not intelligent enough to decide for myself about how I feel.
and if I see a community on any of them I don’t like, then it’s MY job to block it from my view, not an admins.
I can’t see a sensible way to read your comments as anything but critical of admins who choose not to federate with all instances.
My so-called vitriol is because I appreciate that by running an instance, admins are providing a service to me while bearing the brunt of the financial and legal responsibilities that go with that. If I don’t like how they run it, it’s incumbent on me to get out of their house and move into my own rather than complaining.
I actually wonder whether he had trouble blocking the instance he intended to, and just shut down vlemmy instead in the end. It’s pretty strange he just disappeared from everything, though.
Some rather big projects started to remove TS, which upset the community. One if not the biggest is Turbo, from the Ruby-on-Rails guy. He said: “[TS] pollutes the code with type gymnastics that add ever so little joy to my development experience, and quite frequently considerable grief. Things that should be easy become hard”. Now there is a bit of a battle whether or not TS is actually all that great.
It’s more for library devs when writing their libraries. Using TS means you’re writing in one language and then distributing the compiled version for users.
As users can use things in a lot of different ways you have to do a lot of type “gymnastics” to make your library API as useful as possible.
That means spending a lot of time setting up types when a jsdoc and .d.ts file will do the same thing for library consumers.
It’s really a non issue. If some library devs think they can ship code which is easier for them to maintain correctly, and end users have the same developer experience, then it’s totally cool.
Of course people with no nuance are using this as an argument for why no one should write in typescript (because they don’t like it for some reason). This thread has a bunch of people doing this. That creates drama, but there really shouldn’t be any. TS is bae for me, but I totally get why library devs might want to not use it.
Same, but I come from a C++ background so strong typing is in my blood. This sounds like people who write bad code complaining because the language/transpiler won’t let them write bad code.
That doesn't seem a fair assessment at all. In strongly typed languages the types are part of the base syntax and usually not onerous, but rather straightforward to write. In TypeScript they're tacked on in a way that makes quite a lot of work for developers while also making the code difficult to read and reason about (although good syntax highlighting certainly helps.)
I’ve heard it’s more of a problem on the library side. But I’ve personally had pains with ts when working with quirky features such as enums or discriminating unions. Part of the problem in my opinion is that the types all disappear at runtime, so you lose a lot of the joy of a statically typed language. For example, an API can pass you unexpected garbage and all your ts type wrangling helps not at all.
Well yes, if you don’t take care of properly typing external data, you won’t have it properly recognised. But that’s the same in any language that e.g. consumes external JSON data. Use the tools that Typescript gives you (like type guards) or the tools the community has built (like io-ts).
I don’t do java- or typescript but that guy’s comment definitely translates as “I want to keep on writing messy code and you can’t force me to learn to clean my shit up”.
Partly because of her voting record/neoliberal bullshit, and partly because she was senile and should’ve retired. There might’ve been other issues on top of those two things, but as far as I’m aware, those were the big ones.
I think “she was senile and should’ve retired” is being profoundly gentle. She should have retired decades ago, and she should have spent her most recent term in hospice. She’s an even more potent symbol than Mitch McConnell of how pathetically, worthlessly, disgustingly, pointlessly geriatric our government is.
Presumably she kept getting re-elected every 6 years, no? I know that’s not a good enough reason for her to justify running, but what’s a democratic solution that isn’t also ageist?
If someone has freak genes, or sufficiently advanced technology to remain in perfect health physical and mentally at (ex.) 150 years old, we wouldn’t want laws that say, “sorry, people past 80 are generally senile, so you’re not allowed to run”.
I feel like if the people don’t want a 90yo senator, then they shouldn’t elect an 85yo candidate, and we can’t do much better than that. This is also why we have so many redundant representatives, one bad one shouldn’t be capable of sinking the whole ship.
I mean, that’s the essence of all science fiction, virtually all of which are increasingly relevant every year.
But it’s not even necessary for you to understand my argument. There’s nothing that necessitates that a human loses their mental faculties beyond a certain age. To arbitrarily draw a line would be the definition of ageism.
Beyond the fact your brain becomes feeble with age, there’s also the practical fact that there are people in congress who haven’t set foot inside a classroom since the fucking Eisenhower administration. Some of them graduated high school before plate tectonics was discovered or the transistor was invented. Here’s a question for ya: Should high school diplomas or college degrees expire?
Beyond the fact your brain becomes feeble with age
Again, not a fact. People can and do live beyond 100 without losing any mental faculties. What you mean to say is that, at the current time, as humans age, there is a high probability of them developing illnesses that result in mental degradation. That’s not the same as saying “it is a fact that your brain becomes feeble with age”.
there’s also the practical fact that there are people in congress who haven’t set foot inside a classroom since the fucking Eisenhower administration
I agree, that’s much more relevant.
Here’s a question for ya: Should high school diplomas or college degrees expire?
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, if the goal is to maintain a democratic system that isn’t designed to induce bias or favoritism of any class over another, then level of education should never be used as a legal requirement to run for political office. That is called an aristocracy. That’s not to say the job doesn’t have any minimum requirements; the voters are the ones interviewing and hiring for the position, and if education is important to them, they should prioritize it in the voting booth.
IMO if a democracy fails because the voters are too stupid, then it just wasn’t meant to be.
Remember kids! It’s not the fault of the consumers/voters/people, it’s the evil, uh, capitalists/Boomers/whatever. We need systemic change that forces personal responsibility and choice!
Then lemmy tells me the same people can topple capitalism and all get along as communists. And then they whine about how old people run everything because they vote.
Reminds me of my fatass friend standing at the bottom of the stairs hollering for a doughnut because it hurt her to walk upstairs.
we wouldn’t want laws that say, “sorry, people past 80 are generally senile, so you’re not allowed to run”.
I do. We have laws that say “Sorry, people under are usually stupid, so you’re not allowed to run” Not everyone under the age should be denied the right to run/vote, but we decide as a society when someone has lived enough to make choices. Why is it so hard to do the same for an upper age?
I think you accidentally an age, but I get your point.
The difference is that we have scientific evidence that demonstrates categorically, without any outliers, that humans below a certain age do not have fully developed brains. On the flip side, we don’t have any scientific evidence that necessitates that a human loses their mental faculties after a certain age. Anecdotally, my great grandmother lived to 104, was living in her own house the entire time, and could hold a coherent conversation about the early 1900s no problem (up until the last year or two). In her 90s she legitimately said, “what’s wrong with me, all of my friends are dead, why am I still fine?”
Meanwhile, not only has life expectancy been constantly rising over the last few hundred years, but scientists are actively trying to slow or even reverse aging in humans. It’s perhaps unlikely, but not impossible for humans to unlock immortality at some point in the near future.
Point being, you can’t say anything is necessarily true about all adults after a certain age, just like you can’t say anything is necessarily true about /insert race/. So it would be the definition of ageism.
What you really want is some kind of aptitude test to verify that they are still minimally capable of doing their job, but for the same reason that’s not used to admit people to vote, you can never be certain that the test doesn’t introduce a bias thereby disenfranchising people. So I really think the best we can do is a democracy…something better than first past the post would probably help though.
Edit: btw, i think I see now how you missed an age. Apparently things in angle brackets just get deleted :/
The solution is the dissolution of the private corporations deciding how the main (read: only) two parties in our country operate. Dianne only won because she was the Democratic candidate, and she got that because the DNC made it so. If there were more rigorous competition, I’m quite sure she would’ve been replaced a long time ago.
There’s nothing I can say to disagree, I think this answer is spot on. It serves as a perfect example of the difference between a functioning democracy and where we currently are.
Report concluded that there might have been illegal activity, but he doesn’t have authority to do anything about it, so he referred his findings and those that had power to do anything about it didn’t.
His boys were essentially found “too dumb to crime” because of a weird requirement of knowing that it was illegal to ask for it, also, they didn’t assign monetary value to the potential info, so it wasn’t a crime…
And one of the main people who put an end to it was then-Attorney General William Barr. He basically said “Mueller says Trump didn’t obstruct” when Mueller’s actual report basically said he can’t say for certain either way (obstruct or not) and provided a mountain of evidence that could be seen as obstruction. Most legal professionals see Mueller’s report as “we can’t say he’s guilty without charging and convicting, so we’re just going to say the door’s open and hand over the evidence.” Barr’s interpretation was complete bullshit.
The other giant elephant in the room is charging a sitting president with a crime. It’s never been tested in the US whether it can actually happen or not, but there are a lot of strong arguments against. The damage that can do to a country is extreme… I see it as a matter of absolute last resort. One that’s more likely to come after impeachment and removal unless absolutely necessary. And that’s one ugly situation that’s basically showing complete dysfunction to the world.
To be fair, complete dysfunction isn't new. Absolutely nobody in the world would be surprised, the whole US government has shut down at times because of squabbling about the budget.
The other commenters covered it but before Politically Incorrect and Real Time he was a minor comedian in the 80s. He did standup, bit parts on a few TV shows, and I think he got a movie.
So he had a career to speak of before he became primarily a political commentator. His standup act was very reactionary and critical of the “growing trend” (at the time) of political correctness/basic human decency, which is how he got his first show.
Edit: Oh, I forgot to mention he is somewhat left-leaning. He claims to be a liberal, or rather people claim he is, but his stances are all over the place. He’s mostly cultivated a brand of a smug asshole who would call out hypocrisy while being hypocritical…but it’s “okay” because he’s open about being a hypocrite?
He tried to fill the role of THE democrat-hard-hitting-common-sense-political-comedian but was quickly overtaken by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. In my opinion Bill Maher never truly fulfilled that role because he lacks empathy.
Oh, I forgot to mention he is somewhat left-leaning.
He’s not really a left leaning person IMO, just anti-religion and pro-pot.
On the last episode I watched of his show he had a twenty minute gripe session about how COVID affected the partial ownership of some ball club he had. I think that was what it was but I don’t 100% remember anymore because he sounded so fucking out of touch I turned it off.
Google is rolling out a new feature called “Privacy Sandbox” that also enables websites to use Google’s new “Topics API” to view web addresses in your browser history.
People are generally concerned because it allows a site like Petsmart.com to learn that you bank at WellsFargo.com and that you also visit Nickelodeon.com frequently. Petsmart may then use this information to target ads at you.
The larger concern is that just about any website can learn this information (so not just Petsmart.com, but SouthernRecipeMamaOfFour.net can also get this information, which is excessive access for a site like that to say the least). The fear is likely overblown, though.
What can you do to protect yourself? Don’t use Google products or Chromium-based web browsers.
Edit: Looks like my understanding was off. Shout out to NicoCharrua and a couple other users who clarified that Topics API doesn’t expose URLs, but instead looks at the URLs in your history to create topics (kind of like tags) that other sites can see. Hope my potential employer doesn’t find out about my love of large ethnic butts!
The fear is sometimes overblown, though. It’s awful for privacy, but it gets exaggerated a lot of the time, even in the comment you’re replying to.
(…) enables websites to use Google’s new “Topics API” to view web addresses in your browser history.
People are generally concerned because it allows a site like Petsmart.com to learn that you bank at WellsFargo.com and that you also visit Nickelodeon.com frequently.
This isn’t true. Websites only see some of the topics you visit, so in this example maybe Banking (or something a little more specific like savings account), and comics and animation. Here is the list of topics.
What can you do to protect yourself? Don’t use Google products or Chromium-based web browsers.
It’s a good idea to stop using Google products and Chromium based web browsers, but you don’t have to if you want to avoid Topics API. You can opt out of it (at least for now), and some chromium browsers like Vivaldi, Brave and Ungoogled Chromium will probably remove it from their browsers.
Imo the biggest problem with it (over other types of tracking), is that like RagnarokOnline said, any website can get the info, not just the advertisers. So say, the company you’re working for could be told you’re interested in Job Listings, or Retirement & Pension.
I would say, if anything, the fear is likely under-blown.
Sure, you’ll find many users here on Lemmy who hate what Google are doing… but we’re not the typical internet user. I mean, we specifically found this niche platform called Lemmy rather than use one of the mainstream social media platforms. The typical “normie” who uses Chrome probably has no idea about the privacy risks of using it (either in its current form or when the Topics API is being used). We need to help others understand, and hopefully convince these people to move over to Firefox.
Electron apps are largely irrelevant in this discussion, unless they include a general-purpose browser. The Steam client is exclusively used to display things from some Valve-owned API domain (or is there a general-purpose browser somewhere in there?). All the data generated by Steam is completely separate from the data generated by the normal Chrome browser.
And the same thing goes for Electron apps like Signal Desktop, Atom, VS Code, Slack, Teams, …
No, Safaris engine is called WebKit. It’s different, but they’re related:
Once upon a time there was KHTML. Apple forked it to make WebKit. At some point Google forked WebKit to make Chromium. So now WebKit and Chromium development has diverged from each other over the years.
Anyway, use Firefox :)
Firefox is made by a non-profit for the purpose of making a web browser, it’s not made by a giant corporation for the purpose of pushing ads.
I don’t think that is quite right. As far as I understand it the new feature generates topics from your browser history that website can use for targeted ads. So if you visit banking websites it might add to the finance topic. I don’t think Websites get access to the history. Still it is a shitty idea and please use Firefox.
To add to that, its not just about targeted advertising, but a concern is also what happens to data when (not if) leaks happen and targeted pricing. If someone has frequently visited Nickelodeon.com it could be that they have kids who are already applying pressure to purchase a hamster or bird and therefore the parent is likely to have a higher price tolerance for such a product than a childless person.
enables websites to use Google’s new “Topics API” to view web addresses in your browser history
That’s just false. It generates generic topics from domain names in the history and provides some of those topics to advertisers. Nobody gets to know which domains you’ve visited. It also has measures to make it hard to build a profile on you based on the provided topics.
Any kind of tracking is bad. You don’t have to misrepresent what kind of tracking it is
outoftheloop
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.