The counter argument is bunk, you change the comments when you change the code. It’s not hard. If you forget, them a reviewer will notice. If not, then you aren’t focusing enough attention on the finer details of a project, to your detriment.
Personally, I find that a lot of good, accurate comments and documentation helps me to trust a code base more because I can see that the devs cared and focused on the finer details rather than just tossing code over a fence at me.
It's relatively easy. macOS is easier to set up than Linux, but it will always depend on your specific needs and environment.
E.g.: I go a little bit overboard for the average macOS user:
- custom system- and app-specific keyboard mappings (ultra-modifier on caps-lock; custom tabbing-key-modifier) via Karabiner Elements
- custom trackpad mappings via BetterTouchTool
- custom Time Machine schedule and backup logic; you can vibe-code your install script once and re-use it in the future; just make it idempotent
- custom quake-like Terminal via iTerm
- shell customizations
- custom Alfred workflows
- etc.
If all you need is just a sensible package manager and the terminal to get started, just set up Time Machine with default settings, Homebrew, your shell, and optionally iTerm2, and you're good to go. Other noteworthy power-user tools:
- Hammerspoon
- Syncthing / Resilio Sync
- Arq. Naturally, the usual backup tools also run on macOS: Borg, Kopia, etc.
It's important to differentiate between tail-recursive functions and non-tail-recursive functions. Compilers will often convert tail-recursive functions into their iterative counterparts. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail_call
In contrast, non-tail-recursive functions will make the call stack grow with each call.
Well first, read my post. I'm not talking about Macs.
I think this is a cultural divide for young developers, because older developers wouldn't think twice about my comment, but clearly it's an unpopular opinion.
In carpentry, your hammer doesn't tell you what you can and cannot fasten.
No commercial, professional engineering tools require features for consumers, like favoriting items, for them to be distributed.
If that's lost on you, then I have no idea what you think a professional tool is, but there's no world I operate in where you and I share the same idea of it.
It's a cancelable 2-months trial. A lot of HN users already integrated ChatGPT into their fault workflow and daily life and it makes only sense to give a potentially better competitor a try considering how easy it is to jump between ChatGPT and Gemini.
I don't even think it's arguable. He intended to deceive a Secret Service officer with fake federal government credentials, and apparently succeeded in doing so. I believe that is a felony. The judge may reduce the charge or throw it out later though because of the obvious wackiness of it.
Yeah, the ID itself might be judged confusing enough to be legally a counterfeit (which is a crime in itself) while the intentional intent to deceive lawful authorities adds another case to the table.
He’s Woz. A household name. I suspect the secret service agent also noticed it being a fake ID but didn’t want to deal with the litany of paperwork in arresting woz for the crime. Maybe the agent also got a chuckle out of it as well.
Hate to break it to you, but if "Tim Apple" isn't a household name, Wozniak certainly isn't. Steve Jobs _maybe_ is, but even that is likely overestimating the public's knowledge.
Not a lawyer either, but this doesn't appear to statutorily require intent. This is the relevant law[1].
I think the easiest way to prosecute this would be under the "authentication features" section:
(1) the term “authentication feature” means any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol, code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified
If he had replicated any of those things, he committed a crime just by making the ID. Using the ID likely has additional penalties, but just making it is a felony by itself. It seems likely he did, because I think missing seals and watermarks (if those existed at the time) would stand out as obvious to a secret service agent or the TSA.
If Sara was 12 when this happened then this occurred around 1998 or so. At that time the "authentication features" provisions of the law didn't exist, as they were added in 2003. (See the "Notes" tab in your link).
Samsung improved it's update process (and probably pipeline?) dramatically in the past years[1] and the software became much better and more polished.
I received the Android 13 update in November and less than two weeks later another security update. This indicates to me that they roll out updates as fast as possible. Normally I get the monthly security update in the first half of the month.
EDIT: I should probably mention that I usually only buy Samsung's flagships but the midrange device are getting the same treatment AFAIK.
> I should probably mention that I usually only buy Samsung's flagships but the midrange device are getting the same treatment AFAIK.
I really don't have that kind of money to just drop on a phone that will inevitably fall from my pocket and break because it's too damn big. My phones cost less than 200€, and since they aren't samsung they get timely updates.
> This is the equivalent of telling people “why are you working at a job, why don’t you work on hobby projects instead”
This is literally what people do sometimes. I released two decently successful freemium apps and get regularly one-liners in reviews and e-mails like this:
- 3/5* Good app! Please make it free.
- 1/5* Bad app! Feature XYZ costs money and I won't buy PRO [~4USD] just for it.
- 1/5* Make it fully free and I will give you 5 stars!
- Please send me your source code.
HN posts and comments aren't that impudent but it's unfortunately often the same lack of perspective. You'll read here walls of text about how the web nowadays sucks because of ads and tracking without any consideration of the fact that publishers rely on this form of monetization. The most popular "solution" here is just blocking ads via pi-hole etc. and creates a good example for the tragedy of the commons[1]. It becomes an arms race between ad-blockers and ad-providers and makes everything even worse. This makes the appeal to stop using medium even more ironic. Medium is at least trying to create a sustainable online publishing platform that doesn't need classical online ads to survive.
I suspect that the illusion/gif is ambiguous because it's made of just two repeating frames. A "smooth" version of it with more frames would reveal the real direction of the train.
Count me in! When is our next meeting?
Joke aside, I also don't like this binary distinction because I find myself on both sides of the scale. Reading the comments here makes me think that there's probably a lot of unnecessary tribalism (we vs them), confirmation bias and overgeneralization that makes discussing this topic harder than it already is.
I'm impartial in this discussion but that's usually how the counter argument goes.