Were just waiting on WASM to be able to access the DOM APIs directly, and then all languages will be first class citizens on the web, and then RIP JavaScript.
Buttons
joined 2 years ago
Nothing wrong with changing the constitution, as long as people do what's required.
The journalists and the culture at the newspaper wanted to endorse Harris, but the billionaire owner swooped in and overrode all of that. This is obvious.
I realized there's another layer to how messed up this is though. A newspaper changed it's journalistic practices to benefit an aerospace company (Blue Origin). Why is a newspaper connected to an aerospace company?
More and more companies are being owned by fewer and fewer people. The American dream is dead, the free market is a myth at this point.
Throttling everyone equally during times of congestion is also fair in its own way. I'd be okay with that.
I like this term, "billionaire media", because right-wing media likes to use "mainstream media" as a slur to dismiss any other media source that disagrees with them. It's a term that shuts down thinking and gets people to automatically dismiss any claim from "mainstream media".
"Billionaire media" doesn't really work this way, because if Fox News starts criticizing "billionaire media", eventually some viewers are going to wake up and realize, "wait, isn't Fox News owned by a billionaire too?"
People, especially Republicans, love to talk about the "mainstream media". That term needs to die.
There is only "billionaire media" and "independent media".
You're billionaire media if your owned or funded by a billionaire; I don't care if you're only on YouTube, if you're getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from sponsors, you're part of the billionaire media.
If you're funded by a bunch of small donations or have no funding at all, then you are independent media.
Today my trust for billionaire media sank even lower.
When limiting is required, because many people are using the same network, limiting those who have already used the most seems fair.
Your comment might cause me to do something. You're responsible. I don't care what the legal definitions say.
If we don't care about legal definitions, then how do we know you didn't cause all this?
Fortran is still a good language for some purposes I think.
And I feel the same way, C++ tries to solve the problem of having too many features by adding more features.
To answer my own question: I believe it's a runtime error: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/any/trait.Any.html#method.downcast
What if I specify the wrong type? let retrieved = storage.get::<SomeOtherType>();?
Is it a runtime error or a compile time error?
Deno looks interesting.
But Bun choosing Zig makes me think their priorities are not my priorities. As of now, you choose Zig (a not-yet-stable language) because you want to learn Zig and make a neat side-project. Those are not my priorities. Zig offers no unique advantages other than neat new syntax.
Deno chose Rust, which, like Zig, is new, but Rust has reached 1.0 and offers a unique advantage with its safety features. I'm not saying anything about the greatness of Rust here, only that Rust does offer unique advantages, and Rust could be chosen because of general priorities.
Bun chose Zig and then worked backwards and formed their priorities around Zig. Deno formed their priorities and their priorities lead them to Rust.
That's how I feel anyway.