rjmill

That's part of the problem. Some projects, when they move to diataxis, will create a top level section called "reference" and have a single item under it called "API" (or similar.)

Depending on the docs theme, it can require clicking through to get to it.

It is a minor annoyance.

edit: Also gonna tack onto this that my original comment reads way more acerbic than I actually feel. I was sleepy and didn't proofread for tone like I normally do.

Please do not make me click on "reference" to get to "API docs". I love diataxis, but dear lord, do not make me click an extra time to get to the thing I actually need 95% of the time.

Overall, the movement is good, except for how it tends to turn 1-click docs into 2-click docs (or more for folks who don't know that API docs probably live under reference.)

You are allowed to have a top level tab/link to API docs. Please do not hide those from me while you "improve" your docs.

Very nice! Independently of this thread, I was delighted to discover the cross references between pages. It makes a big difference.

They've always resonated with me, maybe because I often work on legacy code. All this ancient technology that no one understands. Crazy rituals/incantations to get things done. People being afraid to skip steps, even if it probably isn't needed. The aversion to unconsecrated (non IT-supported) technology.

The machine spirits were the only part that felt "too magical" to me, but now we're well on our way. The Omnissiah's blessings be upon us.

(Let's just skip servitors. Those give me the heebie-jeebies.)

Someone please explain the grapple leapfrog example and why that "exploit" is interesting. If my players tried that, I'd happily let them use their full turns to do some crazy trapeze act across the battlefield.

And then I'd remind them that they could have just dashed normally.

Moreover, how do the new rules close the "exploit"? You can still move 30ft while carrying someone. (60/2 - 30 vs 60 - 30*2) How is that difference meaningful in this case?

(Also, wouldn't you need something like rogue's dash-as-a-bonus -action to grapple and dash on the same turn?)

The article is pretty interesting overall but this example mystifies me. Am I missing something obvious?

Odd, I don't see any mention of subprocess.run, the workhorse of python scripting.

Quick rundown for the unfamiliar:

Give it a command as a list of strings (e.g., subprocess.run(["echo", "foo"]).)

It takes a bunch of flags, but the most useful (but not immediately obvious) ones are:

  check=True: Raise an error if the command fails
  capture_output=True: Captures stdout/stderr on the CompletedProcess
  text=True: Automatically convert the stdout/stderr bytes to strings

By default, subprocess.run will print the stdout/stderr to the script's output (like bash, basically), so I only bother with capture_output if I need information in the output for a later step.

> But isn't it true for JavaScript too?

I don't think so. It's been a while since I've bled on tricky async problems in either language, but I'm pretty sure in JS it would be

  [...]
  parent_before
  parent_after
  child_before
  [...]

In JS, there are microtasks and macrotasks. setTimeout creates macrotasks. `.then` (and therefore `await`) creates microtasks.

Microtasks get executed BEFORE macrotasks, but they still get executed AFTER the current call stack is completed.

From OP (and better illustrated by GP's example) Python's surprise is that it's just putting the awaited coroutine into the current call stack. So `await` doesn't guarantee anything is going into a task queue (micro or macro) in python.

Not to dimish the achievement, but TFA is pretty clear about the limitations of the piece:

> I was able to get it working consistently, although it did lose 2-3 balls an hour and could only run for a few hours without the motor overheating.

IMO that's more impressive to hear than if he hadn't mentioned it at all. (I would have assumed more marbles getting lost.)

Indeed. Inheriting from 'collections.UserDict' instead of 'dict' will make TFA's code work as intended for most of those edge cases.

UserDict will route '.get', '.setdefault', and even iteration via '.items()' through the '__getitem__' method.

edited to remove "(maybe all?) edge cases". As soon as I posted, I thought of several less common/obvious edge cases.

Can you give an example? I've never noticed that (except for certain specific dialects and slang) but I may be blind to it.

Goodness, yes. The last time I put (genuinely constructive) criticism in a peer evaluation, it turned out to be the only non-positive thing that was said about that coworker. So it became a focus of his yearly review.

He later told me about how his review went (casually at a conference; he had no idea I was the source), and I fessed up and clarified what I actually meant. The HR process had twisted it to a much more extreme version of what I was getting at, completely undermining the utility of the feedback.

Nowadays, I'm just gonna give perfect scores and if I have feedback that needs to be given, I'll just tell the coworker directly. (And if I'm not comfortable doing that, then the feedback probably isn't important enough.)

How do you know that interviewees aren't spending more time on it?

Because you can't guarantee all candidates are spending the same amount of time, it becomes a game theory problem where the candidates will typically lose in some form. In many cases, the right answer is to spend extra time making a really polished (but not too polished!) solution and pretend like you stayed in the time limit. And every candidate is either a) doing that, or at least b) worried that their competition is doing that.

Even if we ignore that dynamic, 3 hours is a long ass time for a candidate to spend when they're not even sure they'll get to talk to another human about it.

In a 1-hour interview, you can run a candidate through a programming exercise and be guaranteed they're not wasting extra time on it. And if they happen to prefer doing take home assessments, you can always let them send you an updated answer later. (But often by the time a candidate asks me if they can do that, I've already developed a favorable view of their skills and can tell them, "go for it if you want, but you've already 'passed' my test.")

By keeping the candidate-interviewer time investment the same, you guarantee that you're respecting the candidate's time as you would your own (because you're sitting there with them.) I can help them skip over the parts I'm not interested in (e.g., by feeding them info they'd be able to find via search or telling them not to worry about certain details.)

If a hiring manager doesn't respect their candidates' time, how likely are they to respect their employees' time?

Great advice, but my case is different because our framework is REALLY hurting us.

/s

It's wild how easy it is to fall into this trap. IMO, if you're considering switching frameworks (especially for perf reasons), your time would be better served by getting parts of your app off framework completely (assuming there's truly no way to get the results you want in your current framework.)

I wonder if Bacardi might be a better analogue for what TSMC gets from this deal.

Bacardi started a distillery in Puerto Rico (iirc, to sell in the US without tariffs) well before the Cuban Revolution. When the Cuban government seized Bacardi's assets, they were able to move everything to their other sites in Puerto Rico and Mexico.

As you point out, I highly doubt this deal moves the needle on whether or not US provides military aid to Taiwan. But it does help give them more options if the situation in Taiwan becomes untenable.

I love it. I want a python-esque version that's whitespace sensitive. But only for trailing whitespace.

Yeah, counting parens! Dohohoho!

From the interview with the TV's original owner, this seemed like his ideal outcome.

The owner had seen discussions of the TV online and knew it was a big deal. But he still couldn't get rid of it until this guy came along.

The owner even said he wanted the TV to go to someone who would use, appreciate, and take care of it. The video clearly demonstrates all of the above. If the TV ended up in some museum, forever powered off, that would be even more tragic in some ways.

I didn't get the impression that anyone was bamboozled or cheated.

And killing a dog is wrongest.

I turned off the alerts, and felt like an idiot after the storms here in NC.

Until I realized that the "severe flooding" warning would have been indistinguishable from the one that goes off whenever there's a nontrivial amount of rain (which is quite often during hurricane season.)

Luckily, it ended up not mattering for me. At best, it would have just explained why my trash cans had wandered into the neighbor's yard.

Many people who need nginx are proficient in JS, or they work with people who are proficient in JS.

Lua is not a common skill among web developers.

I dunno, ask my wife and she'll tell you the songs I'm usually practicing are beyond the edge of my capabilities.

In seriousness, I don't think that statement is meant for lifting/running or anything that's bounded by your physical fitness. Because you're right, the human body doesn't work like that.

Music is probably a better example. I push myself by learning songs that are beyond what I can do now. I practice them and make a bunch of mistakes. And as I keep practicing, the mistakes go away. And at some point, the song I couldn't play becomes a song I can play. Then I find new even harder songs to focus my practice on.

> are there frequent updates in Go spec introducing new features that it is necessary to auto install the compiler itself ?

From what I've seen, the need for frequent updates is more about keeping security scans happy.

Looks like there's not been much progress on this since the article.

Here's a more recent article I found, if anyone's curious: https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/orgasmatron-thomas-stuar...

(Plot spoilers, there's not been any developments on this since TFA.)

> They were at a casino in Monte Carlo when Dán met her future husband, John von Neumann, for the first time. He explained that he had perfected a way to ensure that you could win roulette every time, and promptly lost all his money trying to prove his point.

Magnificent. I can't explain why I'm so delighted by this, but the mental image makes me happy.

> I feel like Amazon must have solved this for all practical purposes.

Seeing how some of my recent orders have been packaged, I have my doubts.

But there definitely seems to be some algorithmic packing going on. Here's an example that piqued my curiosity:

I just received two bulk DnD miniature sets, a small 3-pack of wolf miniatures, and 2 packs of silicone rings. The miniatures and the rings were ordered in separate carts on different days, but arrived on the same day.

The bulk miniatures showed up in one package (not surprising), but the wolves and ONE of the ring packs were packaged together. The last ring pack came in its own package.

Clearly whatever their algorithm is, it's calibrated to avoid "overstuffing" packages. But why not group like things together? Why put the rings with the wolves?

If anyone has insight into why Amazon's algorithm would do this, I'd love to hear about it.

While I can totally see toxic managers reading this, and thinking, "Ha! I told them my management style isn't toxic," my takeaways were a bit different. I read it as being about the dangers of overcorrecting when trying to avoid bad management practice.

To play a charitable devil's advocate, here's my summary:

- You should have some understanding of what your people are working on.

- Suggesting a (potentially) bad idea is an efficient way to get people to teach you all the information you're missing.

- Rather than pinning down the perfect metrics, try to make do with the imperfect measurements that you already have. What do you want to achieve with those measurements? Focus on the end result (e.g., CEO understanding) rather than the metrics themselves.

- Don't sacrifice transparency on the altar of your shit umbrella. Protecting your team is good. Hiding things from them is bad.

I think these ideas could have been expressed better, to make them less easy to misconstrue. (I might be misconstruing the article in my summary! I'm honestly not 100% sure myself.)

If a toxic manager recommends this article and doesn't change their behavior, then that's definitely a red flag. They'll read anything and take it as vindication that they're doing the right thing.

You can also do

  [result] = get_some_stuff(...)

I knew it! Context clues typically imply the ("wrong") meaning, so I misinterpreted this word for a while until I used it out loud, and my pedantic family corrected me.

But so many usages of the word are vague, and the difference between "perplexed" and "ambivalent" is not super important in most stories. (Whoever is nonplussed is not likely to take action on the situation.)

I had a feeling that some authors were using it "wrong." The article does a good job of finding examples where the author's intent was clear. But it's nigh impossible to figure out the intent in most cases. It's fascinating how so many different interpretations can thrive, while not being important enough to correct in most cases.

In my head, "nonplussed" is equivalent to a blank stare. The described person is either not paying attention, or the situation went completely over their head.

This article is ADHD-walled. The long load time, the weird slide show. Then the first page has a jittery animation that makes it impossible for me to actually focus on reading the article.

It's less of a marshmallow thing (though I often fail that test) and more of an overwhelming impression that the article does not want me to read it.

Base 6 is my ideal base. Divisible by 2 and 3. All primes aside from 2 and 3 are gonna end in 5 or 1.

When you count on your hands, you can use one hand for 1-5, and the other for your 10s (6s) so you can count much higher on your fingers.