lcrz

Telling you otherwise might have worked as a educational “shorthand”, but there are no mathematical difficulties as long as you use good definitions of what you mean when you write them down.

The issues people have with 0.333… and 0.999… is due to two things: not understanding what the notation means and not understanding sequences and limits.

“0.999… = 1 - infinitesimal”

But this is simply not true. Only then they get back to a true statement:

“Inequality between two reals can be stated this way: if you subtract a from b, the result must be a nonzero real number c”.

This post doesn’t clear things up, nor is it mathematically rigorous.

Pointing towards hyperreals is another red herring, because again there 0.999… equals 1.

Notice that the men in the paintings of Vallejo are also almost completely naked, hacking away at monsters with large weapons. Yet you did not point to them and say they were indecent.

I really hope that the rest of the world doesn’t take over the sex/violence sensitivities as are prevalent in the US.

Libsodium is also extremely robust. The only crypto project I’ve seen that is as footgunless is google’s tink, and that isn’t available for a JS environment.

What’s great about libsodium is that it’s a single code base that works everywhere. RSA libs I’ve used have subtle differences when it comes to loading keys in different formats and also incompatibilities due to dropping leasing zero bytes for instance. Compared to that, libsodium was a breeze that just worked.

My guess is they wanted to maintain compatibility with NaCl.

At my previous job, we used libsodium as the basis for all our crypto on web, iOS and android. This after a myriad of subtle problems and inconsistencies using multiple libraries for RSA/AES.

Libsodium is pretty opinionated, which is good. The only thing that actually came close in dev experience was google’s ~~Think~~ Tink library, but that isn’t mature on web and probably never will be.

It’s also hella fast.

Edit: corrected library name

There’s a lot of recreational drugs like alchohol and (more recently in the US) weed that are legal to consume. The current system where drugs are only available through illegal means results in violence and huge amounts of organized crime, and a mixture of upper and underworld endangering citizens and politicians. We have huge issues with this in the Netherlands.

Personally, I find drug use abhorrent and I condemn everyone buying drugs illegally and propping up and enriching monstrous people, but I fully support legal drug testing.

More info: https://www.jellinek.nl/vraag-antwoord/why-do-they-test-drug...

If killing third parties wasn’t the goal, it’s very convenient that it killed so many third party apps, isn’t it?

It’s clear you haven’t seen communications from Reddit and the devs if you think that the people losing their livelihoods and projects they’ve been working on for years are somehow the bad guys. A lot of these devs would have been open to the proposed prices (or similar) if only Reddit didn’t give them only 4 weeks to come to terms with a multi-million price of doing business and implement any necessary changes. That’s a lot more than these apps currently make in revenue.

What is the case, is that on short timescales, the average interaction is consistent with what I expect from the community. The anonymity of Reddit has show that the specific face or individual doesn’t matter. It has a ‘friend’ or ‘follow’ option that I’ve never used and really never felt like I needed to use it.

Reddit actually became less familiar to me when I saw users tag other users in a post to share them with other users. The same with user specific subreddits. It’s when Reddit moved from content centric to user centric.

People are upset because:

- Reddit has been terrible and dishonest in their communication - Reddit is dropping Twitter-like pricing out of the blue - These prices seem to have the goal of killing 3rd party apps instead of merely being ‘realistic’ or ‘fair’, like Reddit is claiming - Reddit is dragging well respected devs through the mud and trying to make them look like the bad guys

JSON itself has a much simpler specification than XML, and feels much more lightweight for a lot of devs.

Under the hood though, linked data is all RDF.

Yes. Tailwind CSS is just CSS:

> A utility-first CSS framework

It is not a leaky abstraction, because it isn't an abstraction. It's a only a special syntax for applying predefined blocks of CSS to HTML elements.

Since vue does not hide the fact that something is a ref, you need to call `myRef.value` to get to the underlying value of `const myRef = ref(10)`.

In a new and currently experimental syntax, you can use `const myRef = $ref(10)`, at which point you can just use `myRef` directly. This will then be converted by the Vue SFC compiler.

Another option is to use a reactive object as the state: `const state = reactive({ myVal: 10 })`, at which point you can just use `state.myVal`.

I don't think this is being honest. This is choosing some arbitrary metric and sticking to it, and very much Goodhart's law in practice.

If your job takes you away from the thing you want to be doing, you should try to change your job, not work 6-day weeks or 12-hour days for your employer.

Banks, research institutes, universities are joined in large consortiums. The German hotel reservation example above is one of the projects that’s getting attention.

How would that be a bad default, when it's probably more than sufficient for 99% of the use cases out there? It's even the same default as nginx: https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_core_module.html#cli...

Nest.js is clearly targeting JSON-based CRUD apps, and the defaults are pretty good. File uploads through JSON is not as simple a problem as you try to make it. Are you using bas64 encoding and embedding it in the JSON? Are you using multipart/form-data?

    Python 2.7.16 (default, May  8 2021, 11:48:02) 
    >>> import json
    >>> json.loads('{"a"  :     "b"    }')
    {u'a': u'b'}

It's not ironic. Forceful language (and rather tame still) is not just as bad as a 'joke'. The offence was not at the unprofessionalism of the joke, but at the contents of the joke. That is what fuelled a discussion.

Removing the line from the CoC also was not a response to the joke. It was a response to the ensuing discussion about the joke.

Talking about proportionality as if the change was brought because of the joke is as questioning the proportionality of WW I to the death of archduke Franz Ferdinand.

The 'verdict' as you call it, does not go into detail about the contents of the joke, because it was irrelevant to the reason of why they made a change. It could have easily been a different joke.