I'm starting to realize that I'm way better at talking to higher ups than I am at my actual job. I'm not a bad developer, but I'm not motivated unless the project is either in a really good shape or my task is to improve DX, whereas talking to people hypes me up so it's very easy for me to present motivation that doesn't convert to productivity.

the hedonic setpoint must really be screwing with people's sense of reality if this is really a question. Most people who struggled financially a long time ago can tell you that although not being able to afford things and being kinda sad about it is a constant, it is way more stressful when your budget is closer to the natural fluctuation of necessary expenses, when there's nowhere to scale down in case of a plausible disaster.

I genuinely think they're great, and I think someone with a less gory taste might not immediately associate to flesh

they're fantastic

I imagine the larger one as a Limbo monster, a floppy sheet of flesh that's folded so many times that it's hard to tell how many sides it has, and all of its edges are lined with teeth.

It turns out the component manager view does show download progress, it's only the initial setup which prepares THE SAME COMPONENT MANAGER with a reasonable preset that doesn't relay this information.

It also downloads some of the largest components in the component manager, tallying up to a 5 gigabyte initial setup, downloaded upfront with no progress logging.

Case in point, one of the files is throwing a request timeout. Google unilaterally controls both ends of this connection. They cannot configure a timeout correctly when knowing the exact size of the file and the properties and traffic of the server. They could choose one of their own new fancy pants transport protocols for Fuck's Sake, it's two of their programs talking to each other. I hate this company.

There are also named blocks that you can target with breaks, this allows you to express any control flow that doesn't try to skip assignments.

you can break out of any loop. you can't break WITH A VALUE from a loop that also has non-break exits such as a for or while, again, this is completely necessary for correctness. The difference between a break with and without value is also emphasized in the error message when you try to break with value from the wrong kind of loop.

match is not switch, the equivalent of a break from switch happens automatically every time. If you assign the match expression to a variable you need to either produce a value of the right type or break out of some block that contains the assignment so that the assignment never happens. This is all completely logical and necessary.

But this website just uses SSR which is a valuable feature most JS frameworks have despite the complexity of doing it right.

I'm suspicious about pure HTML+CSS projects because in practice multiple pages have to share a layout, and it's never ever written the same on all pages. Anyone who has the rigor to keep duplicate code in sync will choose to save that work and avoid duplication in the first place.

@ceaser I see why you're confused, the original devs abandoned this platform years ago. We survive until the credit card on file expires thanks to @joewilliams007 's unaffiliated 3rd party app.

I'm heading to a friend's second housewarming party because the first went so well that he decided to repeat it.

I'm heading to a friend's second housewarming party because the first went so well that he decided to repeat it.

France has a lot of civil unrest, they would benefit a lot from restricting encryption to those invested in crime enough to constantly seek out new tools and exposing the general public, which is the only outcomw a telegram/signal takedown would have

I like seek bars, they're just not a replacement for precise jump buttons

@Demolishun you do have a seek bar, at least in the mobile app, you just have to pause the video to see it

clever!

@electrineer how does that even compile?

@AlgoRythm I don't know how this could possibly be a tool problem. It's not like C++ requires operator overloading for anything; if you can't judge whether to overload an operator, just don't do it. In the worst case your code will be less aesthetically pleasing, but never significantly less readable or even slightly less powerful.

It honestly feels like Bjarne wanted a fun demo to showcase implicit casts and operator overloading so he wrote Hello World with pipes and it got so popular that he couldn't remove it afterwards.

Operators are shorthands for function calls. If you couldn't describe what two functions do with the same meaningful abstract sentence, they shouldn't be represented by the same operator.

@atheist well yeah but you notice an infinite loop, much more than a use-after-free or a data race

@Lensflare To be clear, I definitely wouldn't suggest that C++ should completely eliminate UB, only maybe offer tools to limit it to the tiny fraction of any real-world codebase that actually needs it. The vast majority of C++ code is perfectly happy with wrapping stuff in shared_ptr and they would be fine with references that wrap a weak pointer and abort on dangling dereference too, just to name an example of the possible runtime-detectable errors.

@Lensflare I know why they don't do it, I'm just not sure they should. I get the impression that C++ deviated from the zero-cost principle once and they're now stuck supporting heap-allocated exceptions for the rest of eternity, so they responded to that mistake with extreme zealotry that inhibits a proper discussion of the zero-cost principle as one of many values.

@Lensflare I actually kinda like C++. It bothers me that the unverifiable risks become UB and not a runtime crash (and especially that this isn't really configurable) and it has some ridiculous defaults that are only there because of backwards compatibility, and way too much implicit behaviour, but the options for metaprogramming are already great and rapidly improving, and crucially, the type system is strong enough that you hardly ever have to bypass it to get shit done.

job@Lensflare I share a job market with hacks, dilettantes and yesmen.

to be clear, expectations are volatile, that's natural. It's our job to ensure that the correctness of our code is permanent.

I need that free beer to cope with having to read all implementations of an interface to figure out what the set of allowed return values is, just to then discover that some of those implementations are actually returning a value outside the set assumed by most consumers and the only reason it's still working is because the situations that would pair up old providers with new consumers are kinda rare