catshirt

80 ms·

721.
by catshirt 14y ago
unfortunately i think 100% is quite an overstatement. (given that we're talking about people dying, and all).
722.
by catshirt 14y ago
thanks, i must be missing something then. i guess my knowledge is more remote than i think. :)
723.
by catshirt 14y ago
"Now, it is hard to do this efficiently and it's all very interesting, but are we going to reduce AI to finding a conveniently-tuned input -> output function? This is much closer to simple regression than a thinking brain." you're cer
724.
by catshirt 14y ago
i have to ask... pun intended? i used the same wording originally, but revised after i realized what i'd said.
725.
by catshirt 14y ago
with the lead-in about the debate i was hoping Meg Whitman was referring to the United States generally and not HP
726.
by catshirt 14y ago
wow thank you for this. haven't thought about bomberman in years and within 5 seconds i was having a great time. lag issues ("waiting for other players") and passer-throughs are making it a bit difficult to get a game going though. edit: th
727.
by catshirt 14y ago
this doesn't help the use case where i have a client who would prefer to upload files through FTP. but, nice to see it's not out of the realm of possibility.
728.
by catshirt 14y ago
you're right- while unnecessarily verbose... i tried to explain that my concerns lie with BEM itself and not BOSS. that all said, i'd like to substitute my articulation for your own: "Now, do I happen to like their specific naming conventi
729.
by catshirt 14y ago
i realize it might be slightly out of scope, and a less common use case, but an FTP integration that worked the other way around (users can upload to a filepicker hosted FTP and it sends a postback to my app) would be enough to get me to su
730.
by catshirt 14y ago
especially unfortunate timing since i deleted both my twitter and facebook accounts this evening (SELL SELL SELL!). too bad, looks like a fun site.
731.
by catshirt 14y ago
few things don't add up here. 1. they added the social buttons late in the game, and are surprised about 4% of users are using the social buttons. what if that 4% was compromised entirely of users who registered since you added the buttons?
732.
by catshirt 14y ago
my point of contention is that you posit cheez's position was both: " you can only be upset about sexism if... " and " you can't comment on this if... ". i fail to see how you've inferred either of those sentiments from the original post wi
733.
by catshirt 14y ago
your argument was this: "What, you can only be upset about sexism if you've had children?" which is an absurd takeaway from their comment. unless of course, you leave out "If you really think this is the cause of lack of women in CS" . w
734.
by catshirt 14y ago
" P.S. What sort of stupid comment is "you've never raised a woman"? What, you can only be upset about sexism if you've had children? Or, for that matter, have a daughter? " it looks to be the sort of comment whose context was discarded and
735.
by catshirt 14y ago
foul? really?
736.
by catshirt 14y ago
thanks for clearing that up. for what it's worth the readme fails to explain this, and now i'm actually left with more questions. if a selector with no preceding notation is reserved for BEM blocks- how would i reference an element by tag?
737.
by catshirt 14y ago
your statement on compatibility is only a half truth. the problem is not incompatibility with CSS. the problem is that its incompatible with the way anyone actually uses CSS . to be particular- the way it treats the nesting of selectors by
738.
by catshirt 14y ago
first of all, it doesn't seem fair to call this simply a "css preprocessor" since it doesn't seem applicable to any css i've ever written; those selectors are insane. (EDIT: though, as lvivski points out below, it seems possible to use BOSS
739.
by catshirt 14y ago
the way snogglethorpe used "tl;dr" is fine and pretty generally understood. can we stop arguing semantics of an internet acronym? regardless of your admitted assumption, their intent was explained, let's move on now.
740.
by catshirt 14y ago
is it?
741.
by catshirt 14y ago
awesome, yep. sounds nearly identical to my tactic; with 2 minor exceptions. first being i don't necessarily have a unique model for each view- lots of times my subviews use the same model as the parent or sibling views. second is i actuall
742.
by catshirt 14y ago
the problem the author is solving is clear; "Instead of writing gigantic render functions that do everything under the sun (and then more, admit it!) you should break your render methods into small chunks. That way you only ever re-render
743.
by catshirt 14y ago
to be fair, they didn't say it would be ok. they said it would be a better choice. which is probably the case.
744.
by catshirt 14y ago
well, yes, that's exactly what they said
745.
by catshirt 14y ago
please read between the lines here. "Companies can maintain an in-house fork..."
746.
by catshirt 14y ago
" don't judge until you try it " this is a ridiculous sentiment. pretty much in general, but especially applied here.
747.
by catshirt 14y ago
depends on the broken behavior it exhibits.
748.
by catshirt 14y ago
yes but for what it's worth they're arguing against zeldman
749.
by catshirt 14y ago
you're right, but that doesn't sound any better
750.
by catshirt 14y ago
fwiw my previous comment got 25 votes

More ›