deecewan

I have no idea why this is the case, and would love some insight if anyone has it.

Rails has this behaviour (which is where I spotted it) but it seems very counter-intuitive

> ActiveSupport::TimeZone['Etc/GMT+12'].now

Wed, 21 Jun 2023 13:07:24.082417000 -12 -12:00

> This site is usually much classier and intelligent

we must be on different sites

> Tell me how you do the control/auth and allow certain users to access a resource while others

how would you do this with REST? or any other kind of API? graphql, at it's core, is a tool for the frontend to describe to the backend what data it wants. how the backend replies to that is completely up to the backend.

> formulate complex queries where they ask for the kitchen sink

most concrete implementations i've seen include a way to limit complexity. in `graphql-ruby` for example, you can limit how many nodes, and you can apply a "cost" to a particularly expensive-to-calculate node if you like. Say you give an API only 10 "complexity points". You could make most nodes cost 1 point, and expensive nodes cost 3 points. Now, someone can _request_ the kitchen sink, but you can respond with a "no".

there was a point in time when you could run nvidia gpus in mac pros. there were first-party drivers for nvidia cards on macOS

This is not true, at least in Chrome. I've tried with an object with the `toString` property set, and tried with a function with an updated prototype. In both cases, Chrome just...displays the object.

surely not if the customer _explicitly requests_ that the communications are blocked? iirc in Aus it was possible to have your provider block messages to premium rate numbers back in the days when it was popular to buy ringtones.

> Everyone can see all the demos, but only sponsors can see the code for demos marked with . Locked demos are unlocked for everyone after being sponsored by five sponsors.

i think the demos are visible to everyone, but the _source_ is only viewable by sponsors.

that said, still seems weird to lock away code that could make people use your product.

the op is saying "if we autofocussed, we'd need to load all the JS involved in performing the search"

that's pretty much what the comment above is saying. Bootstrapped founders may take money, if they aren't told "you need rocket growth now"

There is no lowering of your rates if you have too much. It's just that the bonus interest rate only applies to the first $50k you have in your Saver accounts (cumulative). I.e. if you have $51k, you'll only get the bonus interest rate on $50k of that. The remaining $1k only gets the base interest rate. You can see more on the pricing page [1]

Disclosure: Up employee. Not financial advice, etc, etc.

[1]: https://up.com.au/pricing/

This is the entire point - people see this as a strict increase in out-of-pocket costs for people.

It's a reduction of subsidies, to maximise the government's ROI.

Plus, you still get a tax-free (although indexed) loan. If you want to do arts and/or humanities, you definitely can. Your loan, which you don't pay a cent of until a certain salary, and then only a percentage of your salary after that, will just be larger.

Low cost, low quality university is often the reason why the masses of STEM grads from India haven't taken over the world (as well as a healthy touch of racism).

This is in Australia, where not only do you get tax free (but indexed) loans for university, but the government also provides a "Commonwealth Supported Place" - they cover half the fees, and then you get your tax-free loan for the other half.

This is entirely just trying to maximise ROI for the government. If people want to do an arts degree, they are able to, and will still get the tax-free loan. But the loan will be higher, because the government is less willing to subsidize degrees that have a lower likelihood of high income.

I also ANAL, but heard this same thing directly when I asked this question at my company's GDPR briefing

And then also say goodbye to any chance of European expansion, ever.

That's a big risk, given the size of Europe and the fact that it the US is your current target demographic, it's not a far stretch to think Europe might be, too.

It's this built in to Firefox? I use session box in Chrome for a similar effect.

It's just become apparent to me that outstanding has two very different meanings depending on context, and this is one of the first times I've seen it used where it could be ambiguous.

Reading this makes me realise how good Australia is in this regard.

We have 'BPay', which every* bank supports from within their apps, and almost all bills support. We have instant intra-bank transfers and next-day inter-bank transfers.

Additionally, the big 4 banks (yup, we have just 4 big banks) have mobile payments, so you can link your mobile number to an account and receive payments into it. It's painful if you're with different banks, but the net result is that no-one* here uses PayPal, et. al, to transfer money to each other.

And now, we've just had PayID roll out, which is instant payments based on email or phone number to any of the banks (I think most banks in AU are participating, but it's backed by our Reserve Bank), which is a huge game changer and pretty much negates the need for a third-party to do this for us.

> mainly provided value for Facebook

Why would so many sites do this for Facebook's benefit?

The sole purpose is for advertising, which is how they make money. The thumb will have the article show up to your friends, and people who have similar interests to you. The pixel also helps with advertising, because they build a picture of who you are and can give you relevant ads.

> Millions per day is -definitely- incorrect.

Too many or too few?

None of this is true. ING Group owns ING. And, as far as I know, ING has never had ATMs in Australia.

ING has a long history of fee-free ATM withdrawals. Nothing to do with CommBank.

Commonwealth is the only big bank, is what I got from the article. ING is definitely live.

Although, I've still not actually figured out how to pay. It's telling me I can receive. I just can't pay (with CommBank). Friends on ING in the same boat.

They should be faster, but I doubt it.

That's clearly not viable, as displayed in the linked article. One of the examples of a good use for this was 1Password reading QR codes from a browser. Additionally, how would screen capture software work?

Our software product eventually got auto-save after having required manually saving for a while. We got rid of the save button, and got tons of complaints.

The button went back up, with no functionality, because users liked that.

Finally got rid of the button and put some text that said 'saving...' -> 'auto-saved' in its place.

Almost every time I ask this question (online or in person), the answer is mostly 'marketing'. I've come to interpret a lot of that as 'this founder can now say they've raised an $x round' and also now the founder's share of the company is with $y.

I just don't know why anyone would want to dilute their cap table so early on, before the product is even public, unless their intention is to exit before building a decent company.

I just don't really get why Google shouldn't be allowed to advertise on their own platform however they want. Say what you want, but there are other options for people to use to advertise if they aren't happy with Google.

Google is powerful because they provided a product so good that everyone used it. And now they're making other services that are also good, otherwise people would try the second link on the page. And, like all their competitors, they're advertising their new product.

If I owned a building next to a highway, I wouldn't have to auction off the side of that building for advertising - I can put my own ad on there (as far as I'm aware). I also think that dining Google billions of dollars is a tad ridiculous. Is there truly that much lost opportunity from whatever they're accused of doing?

Its not really siphoning money off, tho. It is an exchange of money for services rendered.

From what I saw in comments and the (paywalled) article, the problem is that Google isn't siphoning money. They're keeping the ad-space for themselves.

They will buy you first.

Except this only works if we can flip a switch at some point in time to automate everything. Otherwise people will still have to work maintaining robots, building new robots, or working on the technology that powers the robots.

So, now when people are all out there 'playing', the ones enabling the playing still have to work. Good luck encouraging people that is a good idea, when they could just quit and go play themselves.