The mods absolutely endorse it though so in that sense it very much is them. They tend to be extremely dishonest and evasive when confronted directly about it but I mean anyone who has an account here can see with their own lying eyes that this happens multiple times a day, every day and it’s simply not plausible that it’s anything else other than something they support.
The gap between the rules as they are officially written down and the rules as they exist in practice is so wide that it’s basically unrecognisable when you start putting them side by side.
The mods will just gaslight you as well about the entire thing. I know for some unknown reason it’s considered bad form to have anything other than a high opinion of the job they do but I think they do a bad job. I’m not saying it’s not a hard job or anything, I just think they are actively bad at it.
The purpose of a system is what it does. If the system did something different from its purpose, they would change it. I'm sure it's also intentional there's no vouch button for posts. This will change once every high quality post is flagged to death.
I suspect dead usually means shadow ban, at least for comments, and vouch is a way to selectively show through community support a high value comment from an otherwise abusive user. Where flagged is overt, already applies just to that one comment, and vouching in that case wouldn't really make logical sense. Unless we want people to be able to wage flag wars.
Google Workspace has been moving to KMP. They said at KotlinConf that it has replaced their decade-old transpiler from Java to ObjC, which is very impressive.
Yes this is because they are starting with a Java codebase and that obviously makes sense there.
You have other platforms like Google earth who when it was time for a proper rewrite went with flutter and dart along with a bunch of Google cloud stuff and Google Ads.
Dart is hands down the best modern language out there for app development right now what are you even talking about? I understand that maybe a lot of people haven’t used it or maybe haven’t used it in years and that probably drives a lot of the FUD but for those who use it, it has stupidly high ratings from developers who use it and has for years.
Great progress! But smells a lot like the language I had it pegged for when "underscore as a wildcard" lands in February 2025, 2 years after pattern matching lands.
How did they ship pattern matching in 2023, with a million examples of how to do it right already hashed out and in the wild... and then not figure out a wildcard symbol for 2 years?
-
* Dart was awful, lost to Javascript because no one rated it highly enough to justify moving off Javascript, and was practically dead until Flutter dusted off the corpse and pivoted away from their browser goals... so super weird revisionism to act like we're talking about some beloved evergreen language.
> How did they ship pattern matching in 2023, with a million examples of how to do it right already hashed out and in the wild... and then not figure out a wildcard symbol for 2 years?
We shipped support for `_` as wildcards in patterns with Dart 3.0 when pattern matching first shipped.
However, prior to Dart 3.0, `_` was already a valid identifier (as it is in most other languages). The feature you're mentioning from last year was to remove support for uses of `_` as an identifier outside of patterns. This way `_` consistently behaves like a wildcard everywhere in the language. We didn't ship that in 3.0 because it's a breaking change and those are harder to roll out without causing a lot of user pain.
It's OK to not like Dart. There are multiple popular languages for a reason. But it is helpful when communicating about a language to others to be accurate so that they can make their own informed opinions.
Dart wasn’t awful. It wasn’t adopted at the time because it had a distinct runtime that would require splitting web in two which nobody wanted. On top of that it gave Google too much power, because now they would control both runtime (V8) + language (Dart).
TypeScript won and became king because it was pretty much JS 2.0 instead of JS++ like Dart.
In your version of history Dart was always a great language... but Google was simultaneously too powerful for other vendors to allow Dart to proliferate, but also too weak to sustain it themselves despite Chrome going on to do just that for many many web standards.
I'm sure that's a really cozy idea, but doesn't pass the "common sense" test: a bit like your random misuse of the term FUD.
-
The simple reality is it wasn't very good, so no one was rushing to use it, and that limited how hard Google could push it. ES6 made Javascript good enough for the time being.
Dart 1.x had a weak type system, and Dart 2 was adding basics Kotlin already had almost 2 years earlier: that was also around the time I first crossed paths with Flutter, and honestly Flutter by itself was also pretty god awful since it was slowly reinventing native UI/UX from a canvas.
(It was a lot like Ionic: something you used when you had a captive user-base that literally couldn't pick a better product. Great for Google!)
> In your version of history Dart was always a great language... but Google was simultaneously too powerful for other vendors to allow Dart to proliferate, but also too weak to sustain it themselves despite Chrome going on to do just that for many many web standards.
"In my version of history"
It takes two seconds to find this if you weren't there when it happened. Google had a fork of Chromium with Dart VM called Dartium, it wasn't a matter of resources. Industry flipped Google off, plain and simple.
Educate yourself before making such claims, the decision to not adopt Dart wasn't because of its technical merits as a language.
The rest of your comment is just your opinion, so you do you. I'm not a Dart or Flutter devrel team to sell you their product.
I guess this is the Dunning-Kruger effect everyone talks about!
To understand just enough to regurgitate what happened, but miss why it happened... and then assume someone who's pointing at the much more relevant why is just plain wrong.
Because the why requires actually understanding of things like developer mindshare rather than regurgitating search results.
-
The hint I'll leave if you're willing to consider maybe you don't know everything ever... look at who's feedback is being promoted when Chrome wants to do obviously unpopular things on the web: https://github.com/webmachinelearning/prompt-api/blob/main/R...
And model for yourself what happens if developer interest exceeds vendor refusal in magnitude, so Google just ships the thing, without a feature flag, to a massive percentage of the web-going world.
Yes, I’m sure a US invasion will help the local populace finally understand that they should be friendly with Uncle Sam and his freedom loving ways rather than the Russians and Chinese who brought mostly shady investments as a way of building influence.
I don’t think the US is going to be allowed to act outside the ICC for too much longer. All of your former allies are going to insist on it before they will even think about treating your normally again.
The US previously never faced real pressure on this, a new administration would see it as an easy win.
> don’t think the US is going to be allowed to act outside the ICC for too much longer
The U.S. is not a signatory. (Most of the world's population isn't subject to ICC jurisdiction [1].)
> All of your former allies are going to insist on it before they will even think about treating your normally again
Nobody is treating the ICC seriously [2].
To be clear, this sucks. But it's America joining China and Russia (and Iran and Israel and India and every other regional power who have selectively rejected the rules-based international order).
Being a signatory is not required for being subject to ICC jurisdiction, though it is one route to being subject to it, and, in any case, not being a signatory is not an immutable condition. So the upthread suggestion that “All of your former allies are going to insist on it before they will even think about treating your normally again” is not rebutted by observing that the US is not currently a signatory of the Rome Statute.
> But it's America joining China and Russia (and Iran and Israel and India and every other regional power who have selectively rejected the rules-based international order).
No, the US despite rhetorically appealing to it when other countries are involved, has led, not followed, in rejecting the rules-based order when it comes to its own conduct.
The "allies" would have mass riots and six-digit death tolls (shortly after an initial 3-6 month period of adjustment) without the supplies of LNG, fertiliser and payment clearing services the U.S. exports. America has the rest of the west by the balls, with maybe the exception of Australia and Japan. Nobody will even give the C-levels responsible for Grok arrest warrants for the many serious crimes their product carries out.
I hope to god the next administration actually holds the criminals in the current administration accountable. Gerry Ford set a disgusting precedent when he loudly said that those who hold the office of the President should never be be held accountable for their actions.
He believed that within the limits of the political culture of America introducing accountability would lead to a tit-for-tat cycle of imprisonments and executions by each party against the other under the cover story of accountability, with the possibility of gradual escalation towards an end state of states mobilising armored brigades against each other to siege cities and cleanse target populations. Like the Congo, or Rhodesia. His memoirs are wacky stuff.
unlikely. trump didnt held obama accountable for all sorts of crazy things that happened during his administration (bombing libya, drone striking a us citizen minor, using USAID to mount a fake vaccination campaign for DNA surveillance in pakistan e.g.). why would the next administration hold trump accountable?
The Biden administration was prosecuting Trump though. They didn’t complete the prosecutions because Trump’s strategy to avoid accountability was to be reelected and then shut down the investigations, and that worked. But the fact he was indicted by Jack Smith who very likely could have convicted him goes to show lack of accountability is not for lack of trying.
Its very much for lack of trying. They had 4 years, we got no epstein files and they slow walked prosecutions to happen during the election, thinking it would help them. It didn't work, here we are.
It’s clear you didn’t follow these cases if your opinion is the SC slow walked them to enhance Democrats’ electoral out look. They secured multiple indictments and were heading to trial, which they were likely to win. Delays were caused by Trump appointed Judge Cannon and Trump appointed SCOTUS justices.
Securing indictments and going to trial is an instance of actually trying. So you really can’t say they didn’t try, because that is factually false. It’s true they could have done more, but they didn’t do nothing as others are saying.
I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't follow every motion, you're right. Still, in my book, fast walking would have meant moving faster. Venue shop if you have to. Release/declassify documents to make the bad guys look bad. There's lots of "improper" stuff they could have done and are currently getting owned by.
I'm not a lawyer either but I did follow the cases closely. My opinion is that Merrick Garland did a disservice to the country by not appointing a SC immediately, but beyond that Jack Smith moved with lightning speed in prosecuting the cases. Moreover, Congress did make the bad guys look bad -- they held a whole summer's worth of hearings where they prosecuted the case in public, offering plenty evidence. And I encourage you also to look at how it was the Supreme Court who slow walked their decisions, which ultimately benefitted Trump in obscene ways. You can't venue shop SCOTUS.
One thing about prosecuting a former POTUS for the first time is it has to survive the test of time. You can't behave like them if you want the prosecution to be legitimate, because they are lawless. But it was the failure of voters to do their due diligence to not elect a felon who bear the ultimate blame, as they are the final check. Now we bear the consequences. But again, not for lack of trying.
It's late where I am so I don't have a well-reasoned response, just wanted to say I understand what you're saying. It sucks, given what the current admin is getting away with, but I understand it.
i would feel better about that if the biden administration also prosecuted obama. they didn't. besides trump I (nor biden) didnt do any new foreign adventures AFAICT. we had a blissful 8 years of waning US imperialism
It's unclear if most if not all of those things you were actually crimes legally (regardless of how morally and ethically reprehensive they might have been). Regardless there was an established precedent for what Obama was doing. Not so much for the crimes Trump was being accused..
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a 16-year-old United States citizen who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen, a country with which the United States was not at war with.
Please let me know what was the established precedent for allowing extrajudicial assassination of American citizens is.
Edit add:
He was a boy who was still searching for his father when his father was killed, and who, on the night he himself was killed, was saying goodbye to the second cousin with whom he'd lived while on his search, and the friends he'd made. He was a boy among boys, then; a boy among boys eating dinner by an open fire along the side of a road when an American drone came out of the sky and fired the missiles that killed them all.
A 16-year-old American boy accused of no crimes was killed in American drone attack
pretty sure when obama murdered Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (nb: not talking about the more famous Anwar) that was unprecedented. Trump later murdered Abdulrahman's sister, but at that point, it was "precedented" by obama.
All this fuckery date from at least bush 2nd. Election mess, with heavy involvement of his brother the governor despite promises to revise, crowds attacking poll workers, war crimes, putting incompetent friends at the head of agencies (remember FEMA response to Katrina? Or the initial response to the subprime crisis?), attacks on science programs and schools, and the use of executive orders to bypass congress. Obama was so tame compared to Bush2.
Europe is not the military power that once was at the beginning of the 20th century... aging populations, economic decline, trade deficits, their former colonies are now independent, they haven't waged war in a while.
Negatively. That has always been the problem of the US, it's the reason why they cannot act like the most of the rest of the world. The military has way too much influence on decision making.
Just watch one of the sessions of the UN general assembly. There are many speeches about fixing all kinds of situations. If the best ideas were implemented we would be in a utopia with flying cars, free ponies for everyone and open bar. But we don't live in such world because if one motion somehow makes one of the countries with veto power uncomfortable, they will just veto the resolution and that's the end of it. And countries with veto power are backed by military power. That's the world we live in and it has always been like that.
And things work like this at every level in every organization. For example people in your line of reporting at work can veto any decision you make unless you are protected by law, which is an entity that can shut down your company by force.
That’s just the reality of it. The GDP of Russia and Canada is about the same but nobody cares about Canada from a geopolitical context because it has an irrelevant military.
ICC is a joke though. It can only accomplish anything if the home country of the perpetrator is cooperating. Those allies also have much politically important economic and geopolitical concerns than prosecuting war criminals (unfortunately only small minorities in western countries care about things like that at all)
No, they wouldn't. Not if they're the Democrats as we know them. They fight tooth and claw against the new normal, until it's the new normal, and then they fight tooth and claw to defend the new normal.
There's very little principled opposition to Trump in the corridors of power. There's plenty of opposition, but it's more about which horses have been bet on.
There's a definite reason that the Trump regime has sanctioned ICC personnel, disallowing them access to things like Microsoft software and unbanking them:
> a definite reason that the Trump regime has sanctioned ICC personnel
Yeah. Pettiness. The ICC doesn't have jurisdiction in the United States. We aren't a signatory to the Rome Statute. (Most of the world's population doesn't live under its jurisdiction.)
There is no way the former allies of the US are going to normalise relations with them before they fix this though. The fallout for this is going to be a lot larger than I think you suspect.
> no way the former allies of the US are going to normalise relations with them before they fix this though
I think you genuinely hold this take and it's admirable. I'm not seeing any indication (a) our militarised allies are behaving particularly differently or (b) they're concerned about us bombing stuff in the Western Hemisphere. (Versus in their backyards, creating refugee crises.)
> fallout for this is going to be a lot larger than I think you suspect
Maybe. Hopefully. I doubt it. Russia, China, Israel, France and the UK are doing fine.
Translation: "Name a Zionist-holocaust-of-babies-supporting-pedophile-rapist-infested-government in the OECD that’s fundamentally opposed to this intervention"
This administration is just a continuation of the last administration. Same policies on anything important. But it is possible you missed the Gaza Genocide?
Apple is intentionally trying to make it frustrating in hopes that people will complain to relevant voices that “there’s too much regulation and you should just let Apple do its thing” which is something they've been pushing a lot in Europe the past few years for example
This is such nonsense and everyone who’s a web developer knows you’re not being honest here but just to make it ever clearer for anyone else here’s a chart showing the number of bugs that only occur in a single browser.
> This is such nonsense and everyone who’s a web developer knows you’re not being honest
And in your opinion "being honest" is speaking for every web dev out there?
I've been a web dev for 25 years (god I'm old) and Safari has not been a major pain for me.
You keep bandying wpt.fyi results around not even understanding what they mean. E.g. Safari only passes 8 out of 150 accelerometer tests. So? Does it affect every web dev? Lol no. But it does pass 57 out 57 accessibility tests which is significantly more important.
The idea that you’re pushing is a hole that Apple themselves have dug on purpose, this is not an oversight but a very intentional decision of theirs to protect their profit margins that their main user retention strategy is that many courts in the world especially the US are never going to force them to compete freely in an open marketplace with consumer choice is a factor.
reply