Quekid5

55 ms·

661.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Ugh, thanks. Sadly, I can't edit... I can only apologize.
662.
by Quekid5 6y ago
EDIT: Apologies probably wrong name of the phallacy, so I removed that. Regardless, the fact that deep-fakes exist has absolutely no impact on whether DKIM has problems or not.
663.
by Quekid5 6y ago
That is... naive. The incentives for journalists don't necessarily align the the interests of the general public (transparency, thorough research, etc. etc.). The point is that DKIM can be abused to lend undue credibility to falsified
664.
by Quekid5 6y ago
That's fair. Reasonable people can disagree about these things. EDIT: Sorry, a bit of a rambly post, too tired and emotional to rephrase. I will say, though, that "fundamental networking and caching issues" sounds very... wea
665.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Re: your edit, I am also baffled by this idea that open source and paid developers cannot exist. In this case it's the government which technically doesn't have to actually make money (budgets, tho), but it can work in non-governm
666.
by Quekid5 6y ago
I will try that.
667.
by Quekid5 6y ago
I'm happy for you. ... and I believe it. Unless you researched it heavily that was just good luck, honestly. Your printer has a good OSS driver, and it worked. Mine did not, even though I thought Brother was generally OSS-friendly. :(
668.
by Quekid5 6y ago
(I'm arguing theoretically here:) > I work at a small startup. This means you can afford a lot of technical debt, even such technical debt as might be incurred by GraphQL (as argued by the post and many people in this conversation).
669.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Laser all the way, baby! ... although I was disappointed recently by my usual go-to of the Brother brand. Their Linux/CUPS drivers are some sort of bizarre concoction of Perl scripts and x32 binaries... and still cannot print in duplex
670.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Right, for DI/IoC it seems pretty standard. (I think it's probably a historical accident, honestly. Reflection was really the tool to get constructor parameters and then someone figured, hey, why not just inject private values d
671.
by Quekid5 6y ago
> But I've discovered that, in practice, my Python-using colleagues are no less likely to respect `_field` than my Java-using colleagues are to respect `private field`. That's a very interesting observation. You really have t
672.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Oh, it seems it has received the hug of death. I have do say I was always fascinated by the idea of Lyx, but ended up using Emacs + AUCTex (I think?) for authoring my papers... but it was a different time and LyX was perhaps a bit to late t
673.
by Quekid5 6y ago
I see a lot of potential legal liability for posters and/or companies here. They're not bad ideas, per se, but why even try that hard when you can just take money to remove bad reviews or inflate ratings? Again, misaligned incenti
674.
by Quekid5 6y ago
I reluctantly[0] concur. Absolutely agreed that the chat responder must be an actual person and also competent. I get the impression that many sites just use a chatbot for the initial interaction and then maybe escalate to a human (compet
675.
by Quekid5 6y ago
> Glassdoor is just corporate Yelp. I think this is the inevitable fate of all for-profit review sites which become popular. The incentives just don't align.
676.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Crimes of passion are a thing.
677.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Ok, makes sense, but what is the workflow like, then? Would one close the bug along with the fix to the code, or...?
678.
by Quekid5 6y ago
So they're independent of what happens to the code and just happen to be bundled/synced when the code is?
679.
by Quekid5 6y ago
> The idea of having everything in one repo, incl. bugs, is just great. I can create new bugs while offline, update bugs while offline, etc. and then just sync everything once I'm back online. The bug thing I kinda disagree with...
680.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Some of their style guides are a bit... particular to their situation, but this one I absolutely agree with. There are so many pitfalls, so many weird interactions with pipes and error conditions in subprocesses, signals(!), etc. etc. that
681.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Oh god, I love that Look Around You (What are...) skit so much. It's just so incredibly silly.
682.
by Quekid5 6y ago
It's basically a research-level problem given the other constraints of Rust. (Which is fine. Trade-offs and all that.)
683.
by Quekid5 6y ago
What about the Parser monad? Or the Validation Applicative? I think you're being a bit short-sighted here. I fully appreciate that it might be extremely difficult to accommodate these HKTs, etc. in a language with the core values of Ru
684.
by Quekid5 6y ago
Do notation isn't the important part. It's the reuse you get from the Monad, Applicative, Functor, etc. traits/typeclasses. (Of course you still want some form of nicer notation than the raw one, but that's beside the po
685.
by Quekid5 6y ago
> GnuPG is more of a CLI "library" to interface with it It abjectly fails at that. It's just awful to interface with.
686.
by Quekid5 6y ago
I'm not sure Common Lisp has evolved very far in the last 20 years, honestly -- that seems to be part of the value proposition, though I don't quite understand it. I do recommend On Lisp for people who want to understand and get a
687.
by Quekid5 6y ago
The only part of PG's writings I've taken seriously was On Lisp -- which was excellent, TBF! Everything else I was made aware of later was so seriously skewed by Survivor Bias[0] that it wasn't even useful for anyone outside
688.
by Quekid5 6y ago
That's fair, but I do personally have a stance that compiler-checked documentation is the ideal documentation because it can never drift from the code. (EDIT: I should add: It should never be the ONLY documentation! Examples, etc. matt
689.
by Quekid5 6y ago
> So, then the user calling the library with foo(3.5) will get a runtime error (or, ok, maybe even a compile time error). I'm not sure I understand this. See below, but the larger point here is that the type can never lie -- names
690.
by Quekid5 6y ago
I agree (in principle!) with the idea that consistency across the whole code base has value, but personally I find it extremely marginal, unless you're literally dealing with e.g. hundreds of people needing to read/modify the co

More ›