JoeyJoeJoeJr

Seizing "office property" isn't going to disrupt customers in the same way as seizing a plane, and again, no one is saying don't seize a plane, or don't punish Ryanair - just don't seize a plane with passengers already on it (at least without going through a process that includes a threat and a deadline, so the customers can, theoretically, be spared).

The logic you're applying here would have all accounts frozen at a bank when a single customer disputes a charge, all parcels held when a carrier misdelivers a single item, grocery stores unable to sell food when one customer should have been refunded.

No one is siding with Ryanair here. But laws can be enforced and justice can be carried out, without disrupting the lives of everyone else. There were likely on the order 200 people on that flight who would have been caught in the crossfire of a dispute they have no part in.

What would the alternative course of action be? Seize the plane immediately, kick off all the passengers, and screw over a whole new set of people? The sticker may seem toothless, but it's the court going through the (predefined) process. As long as they continue that process, there's no reason to be upset at the court, yet. (If they don't follow through, then perhaps it's pitchfork time.)

They were, briefly. Google sold them pretty shortly after buying them. If I recall correctly, the noise at the time indicated it was all about getting IP - they bought the company to get access to patents that I think they kept, when they sold the rest of it on to Lenovo.

$30/hour is about $60K/year.

That's an absolutely livable wage in NYC. You might need a roommate, but it's easily achievable. I lived there for almost a decade (recently), but since you shouldn't trust random people on the internet, here's the MIT living wage calculator:

• Manhattan: https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/36061
• Brooklyn: https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/36047
• Bronx: https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/36005
• Staten Island: https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/36085
• Queens: https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/36081

As a single adult with no kids, you're just barely under the "living" wage in most of those, but well above "poverty" in all of them. In any borough, with a roommate, you're cruising comfortably (see the "2 Adults (Both Working): 0 Children" column). In the Bronx, as a single adult with no kids, $30 is above the living wage mark.

It's also worth noting, people may live outside the city, but take a train or subway in for work. Living just outside the city brings costs down quite a bit.

The title is a bit of a joke against the thumbnail - "pointless" here means "purposeless." The video is about structures built that do not serve a traditional function, e.g. they exist only for aesthetics, or just to make someone "earn" money rather than donating money.

This isn't newsworthy. I'm not a fan of Vance at all, but his comments here aren't even bad. If you read the article, the comments boil down to: "I believe this, I wish she did too, it's fine if she never does, I love her regardless." It's honestly pretty healthy to be able to have that in a relationship.

This is practically at the level of criticizing Obama's tan suit, and is just noise and distraction in a news cycle filled with actually bad things (multiple wars, the government shutdown, measles outbreaks, a hurricane, etc). Don't spread this nonsense. It's fodder for the other side to call people out for being focused on ridiculous, unfounded slights, and allows them to not pay attention to real issues. Make noise about things that matter.

Are you sure it's not ukulele?

Are you building something for fun, or something meant to last? If you want it to last, I'd be looking at old frameworks - obviously React, and Vue has also been around a long time. Angular is also old, but Google maintains it, so they could kill it at any moment (and personally I hated it when I had to use it).

I've never used Svelte, and don't know much about it. From a quick look online, primarily what it does differently than other frameworks is use a compiler. I'd be a little concerned here, because what it compiles to is JS, as that's what runs in your browser. This can make debugging more challenging, because when you pull up the debugger in the browser, it's not your code, it's the compiled code. They may have solved this problem, they may have browser extensions and IDE plugins to help with this, but find out before you start. If you can't use a debugger, use a different framework.

But you (almost certainly) started using those backend frameworks after you had experience. You learned the basics first, and then incorporated frameworks when you got to larger projects.

I came here to say the same thing as the original reply in this thread, albeit with slightly different justification:

If you don't know the basics, and can't build a functional site with just HTML/CSS/JavaScript, all of the frameworks will be a nightmare. You should really learn those first, even if it means building a practice site, or completely rebuilding your frontend when you decide to use a framework.

The frameworks can make your life easier, but there's a learning curve, and a huge cognitive burden especially when you are just starting. You'll fight them more than work with them at the start.

That all said, never use what's "hip" on the frontend. JS frameworks typically have the lifespan of a house fly. React is one of very, very few that has remained popular, and continued to get updates for a long time (at least in JS framework terms). It's a solid choice with a huge community, good docs, good tooling, etc. There may be other valid choices, but seriously - avoid anything new and flashy, because that usually just means its deficiencies haven't been found yet, and as soon as they are, there will be a new framework.

But... you can see his face. He looks so happy! I'd sleep well with this guy watching over me.

This article was posted here as well. Here's the comment I left there:

This article seems either very naïve, or fairly disingenuous. Signal is not precariously installed on one box, and if that box goes down, the service dies. It is distributed. It's running on many machines within AWS, and technologically, there's no reason it couldn't be in multiple regions of AWS, or even spread across multiple clouds (e.g. Azure, Google Cloud, Oracle, etc), to improve resiliency to outages. The only way in which it is "centralized" is that there's one foundation in charge of the whole thing. Are there drawbacks to this? Yes. But self-hosted, distributed, mesh/relay chats also have drawbacks. Servers in the mesh go down, people don't keep things updated, they don't necessarily connect to every other instance creating disjointed pockets, etc.

Also, to say "we don't need the internet" we need "mesh networks" is odd... The internet is a mesh. Hence "inter." Anything else is just a smaller version of the same thing, again with some benefits and some drawbacks.

Fighting a (relatively) successful platform that champions privacy and security, seems like a bad thing to do, when those are the same primary goals of the platform you support. It would be better to discuss the merits and use cases of each, and beat the privacy and security drum together.

In my opinion, this article is just spreading FUD. Signal is not perfect, but it's pretty good. And when there's an outage, we know why, and we know there's a team working on it. With a federatated service, it may be harder to take "the whole thing" down, but that doesn't mean nodes don't go down, service isn't disrupted, etc. Scaring people away from a (usually) reliable, open platform, that has been audited, that actively advances security research and keeps it's platform secure against emerging threats, is counter productive. It's just going to keep people using SMS and WhatsApp.