cxr

15 ms·

301.
by cxr 11mo ago
You are being obnoxiously and unreasonably dismissive. Just because you declared they're wrong or that something is a certain way doesn't make it so. > I don't know why you want an RSS file to be viewable. Well, spend two
302.
by cxr 11mo ago
Bad take. In the first place, the appropriate time order of magnitude for how long static type checkers have existed for JS is "decades". In the second place, the function that "joins an array of strings with a joiner"
303.
by cxr 11mo ago
Not sure what any of what you wrote has to do with the subject at hand. Your comments are vague and come across as non-sequiturs at best. The only thing I've claimed is that keeping dependencies under source control neutralizes the su
304.
by cxr 11mo ago
Mm, no. The practice I described is neither "never upgrading" your dependencies nor predicated upon that. And your comment ignores that there's an entire other class of problem I alluded to (reproducibility/failure-to-r
305.
by cxr 11mo ago
What everyone should all be doing is practicing the decades-old discipline of source control. Attacks of the form described in the post, where a known-good, uncompromised dependency is compromised at the "supply chain" level, can
306.
by cxr 11mo ago
Yes, the repo creator's tone is obnoxious. > Remember: Always disable sourcemaps in production! Or don't. There is a non-zero possibility that this wasn't even an accident. One has serious doubts that the person who wrote
307.
by cxr 11mo ago
> It's just ill-informed ideological thinking. > People see Google doing anything and automatically assume it's a bad thing and that it's only happening because Google are evil. Sure, but a person also needs to be consc
308.
by cxr 11mo ago
You're not wrong. And where philosophical razors are concerned, the most apt characterization of the source of Mozilla's decay is the one that Hanlon gave us.
309.
by cxr 11mo ago
> If Mozilla had ever wanted a healthy side business, it wasn't in Pocket, XR/VR, or AI. It would have been in building a DevEx platform around MDN and Rust[…] Those people have since been let go. The first sentence isn't
310.
by cxr 11mo ago
You're hallucinating a non-existent premise to the actual conversation that occurred. The person you responded to answered the question posed by the person that they responded to. And they answered it correctly. Your "counterpoi
311.
by cxr 11mo ago
> My original point is that you can write a compiler for any language in any language. A perfectly fine observation on its own—but it's not on its own. It's situated in a conversational context. And the observation is in no w
312.
by cxr 11mo ago
You have lost the plot, and you are wrong.
313.
by cxr 11mo ago
That's not a counterpoint—at least not to anything in the comment that you're (nominally) "responding" to. So why has it been posted it as a reply, and why label it a counterpoint?
314.
by cxr 11mo ago
A recent attempt to bring up an element in Firefox's inspector by right-clicking the element and selecting the appropriate menu item resulted in the fans on my machine spinning up and the process needing to be killed after it appeared
315.
by cxr 11mo ago
Are they editable?
316.
by cxr 11mo ago
It's explained on the first slide of the talk. cjsawk is a pnut fork that can bootstrap TCC if you have either awk or a JS interpreter installed, but no C compiler.
317.
by cxr 11mo ago
Which these things aren't. But congratulations on grasping what a wiki is, I guess.
318.
by cxr 11mo ago
If you're upset about these things, the one thing not to do is to empower them by yes-anding the people involved as they debase the meaning of words, in the way the author of this article does: > I’ve tried it on one of my pet proje
319.
by cxr 11mo ago
It's not "just the name of the service". The Deepwiki people are either morons or assholes or both. Complaining that someone is debasing the definition of the word "wiki" by applying it to something that isn&#x27
320.
by cxr 11mo ago
No, it's not. How old are you?
321.
by cxr 11mo ago
So what's your rationale for denying recipients true freedom and choosing to shackle them under the terms of the MIT License?
322.
by cxr 11mo ago
Anger is no justification for violence against your partner.
323.
by cxr 1y ago
> I've seen sites randomly generate passwords for users as well. Does that mean users reusing their passwords at all is a prerequisite? What? > I can also say that using emails doesn't decrease security because you can[*] u
324.
by cxr 1y ago
To start with, randomly generated usernames weren't mentioned, and they are not a prerequisite. > It "generally" doesn't, because the average user isn't randomly generating usernames per-site What other people do
325.
by cxr 1y ago
Credential stuffing happens when a user signs up on one Website B with account information matching the information they used when setting up their account on Website A, and the operator of either Website A or Website B can use those creden
326.
by cxr 1y ago
The problems described here notwithstanding, it's not exactly what I meant when I mentioned _fundamental_ flaws. I was referring to the decision to follow the paradigm where to share an MS Word or Excel document, the recipient will ne
327.
by cxr 1y ago
At the very least it's (probably*) illegal whether you agree with it or not. Even where it's not illegal, physical violence against your partner isn't okay, even if they've angered you. * depending on jurisdiction
328.
by cxr 1y ago
It's a question about whether you still beat your wife. If the answer is yes, then your answer is yes, and if the answer is no, then your answer is no. It sounds like you're looking for a jurisdiction where you can beat your wife
329.
by cxr 1y ago
Do you still beat your wife?
330.
by cxr 1y ago
> Mozilla's own site expounds on "Don't Break the Web" as I'm a former Mozillian. I don't give a shit how it has been retconned by whomever happened to be writing copy that day, if indeed they have—it isn&#

More ›