I see, thank you for the clarification. I was quite confused because it seemed to be missing, this one didn’t quite seem correct. If they never even pushed it as a MR then that makes more sense. Then the whole “hasn’t been merged yet” is missing that it hasn’t even been created.
I see, thank you for the clarification. I was quite confused because it seemed to be missing, this one didn't quite seem correct. If they never even pushed it as a MR then that makes more sense. Then the whole "hasn't been merged yet" is missing that it hasn't even been created.
So you're using [] as an alternative function call syntax to (), usable with nullable parameters?
What's the alternative? let x = n is null ? null : math.sqrt(n);?
In principle, I like the idea. I wonder whether something with a question mark would make more sense, because I'm used to alternative null handling with question marks (C#, ??, ?.ToString(), etc). And I would want to see it in practice before coming to an early conclusion on whether to establish as a project principle or not.
math.sqrt?() may imply the function itself may be null. (? ) for math.sqrt(?n)? 🤔
I find [] problematic because it's an index accessor. So it may be ambiguous between prop or field indexed access and method optional param calls. Dunno how that is in Dart specifically.
The issue, presumably the PR (linked at the top of the issue because of reference).
Look at the code change. It gets inputs and loops over them and seems to do an in-place fixup. But the code indent is wrong, and it even changed the function definition of the unrelated next function. In Python, the indent-logic-significance language.
I assume they briefly showed the code on stage. Even then it should have been obvious to any developer. py file, messy indent, changes unrelated function.
I would make Thursday AI day and do everything with AI. And Friday is recovery day, where I discard everything that didn't work, and do what I want, to recover motivation for long-term sustainability.
I wonder if and when they would notice a productivity difference. I certainly couldn't and wouldn't be able to do that indefinitely.
We have found no evidence of malicious actors abusing this vector"
"We see no evidence of that which we do not monitor."
These press releases/responses seem to never include "we track x and y and see no evidence". Or "we would be able to identify them but do not see evidence". I can only assume the worst.
I understand the need for full detailed reasoning, but that legalese document is not approachable or accessible.
I wish they had at least given a plain language summary of the changes they intend to make. For full reasoning you could still refer to the whole document.
I guess I'll trust the EFF in their interpretation.
Numerous invalid patents have been granted in the past, and had to be challenged to be corrected.These suggested changes are horrendous for a just or sustainable patent system.There may be opportunities for change or efficiency gains, but blocking and evading challenges in various ways is not a good approach. It excessively favors patent trolls which act maliciously and damaging to other companies, the economy and society at large.
Looks like it's just random commenters taking random guesses because those have happened before.
What is a “repository reset”? One commenter writes:
There was a temporary similar “outage” back in July with rewritten history, apparently something inappropriate was recorded in the repo history they wanted cleaned out. The repo came back after that. I have no idea if this is the same thing, or if they just got tired of maintaining it.
Seems strange to me. You can prep locally and then force-push. I don't see why rewriting history would require taking the repository down.
I always read the weekly post title and am tempted to write and comment. I've written an entire post before. But then I notice it's in c/cybersecurity - which my work is not in specifically. 😅
So they're addressing students and private hobbyists, but not open source and hobbyists willing to publish.
Sounds like it will be a kind of sideloading onto your own devices.
that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified
So for F-Droid, a vetting and curating publisher, users will have to go through this expert process. The announcement that activation under pressure will be prevented makes me thing of a time cooldown, like activate now, and it becomes active by tomorrow, 24 hours later.
Scamming is a real problem, and to a degree, it may end up being a good thing. As long as Google does not take this opportunity to push hidden agenda of increasing accessibility and choice, to seize more control not for security but as market and platform strategy.
F-Droid says they don't want to impersonate other projects in order to be able to publish their projects, arguably decreasing security, which is a valid concern. As long as there's a setting to allow this kind of sideloading and the use of F-Droid like before, I guess it is what it is, and may be acceptable.
If only they had started from where they are now. It's plainly obvious there's these kinds of users and use-cases. Did they really need "the community feedback" to learn about everything outside of their primary "linear" users?
On AniDB I can enter dd.MM.yyyy or yyyy-MM-dd (text input), which I like a lot. I often prefer reading and writing yyyy-MM-dd.
Some time ago I changed my Windows number format settings to show me yyyy-MM-dd formats. Unfortunately, that broke my webbrowsers date input / datepicker. :( So I had to go back to the standard culture format (de in my case).
The worst is when you work with dates and don't know what is what, or when the behavior is unexpected.
Probably everyone knows about the Excel shitshow of implicitly converted values.
In SQL Server, what do you think 0000-00-00 is when converted to a date, explicitly or implicitly? Well, unfortunately, yyyyMMdd is a safer format than yyyy-MM-dd.
What I wrote. I wouldn't want to do AI Thursday and kinda malicious compliance for a prolonged time.