We don't know if it's Gandalf. It's only speculation. He mimics Gandalf-isms from the movies (cupping a bug and talking to it), and generally looks like him. It could easily be misdirection for someone else like Sauron or maybe even a blue wizard?
Have to disagree. I've found plenty of issues that affect real production users through the use of AB testing. Problems that were small enough to escape review, testing, and reporting, but large enough to be stat-sig. They always lead to a bug, or issue with test vs control.
I will always use AB testing for uncertain code in the future. I was skeptical when I first started writing AB tests, but they have proven their worth over and over again.
I'm talking about running week or month long tests with control and multi test cells containing new functionality, configuration, or code to determine the viability of a single or combination of changes by analyzing statistical output driven by p-value and pre-determined target metrics.
These types of experiments are extremely valuable in uncovering hard-to-find bugs, assuming you have sufficient logging and confidence around your metrics. They let you know a problem exists and roughly where it is in the product. From there you can drill down and investigate your source code until the discrepancy is found.
This makes sense to me. Not the kind of AB testing I had in mind, but fair point. I was thinking more about decision making processes, not operations troubleshooting.
Yes, I know this and I agree. I understand they use the same techniques and terminologies, but this is just not the kinda thing the article is criticizing.
We found it to be about 32kb gzip+minified in our builds. I just dropped it from one of our apps, where it wasn't even used except in a legacy logging module. We replaced the ajax call with XHR. The other app we maintain has it as well, again only for the ajax method.
While it may be nice, for large production apps we'll take the filesize gains where we can find them.
Our product is used by all sorts of devices and resources. Many use it on super old hardware in different countries. 32kb isn't much, but when you're analyzing Time To Render metrics, you might be surprised how little is necessary to move the needle.
That said I don't expect a massive impact from this change, but removing unused code is going in the right direction.
Then, on the other side of things, every fast food android app is ~60 MB. Even Five Guy's is 45 MB. Why? They all do the same thing, and none of the data that is used is included in the app, and all the logic might as well be the same.
And then on top of each restaurant app, you also have Uber Eats, Door Dash, etc., which again, basically so the same thing.
There should really be a single fast food app, I select my restaurant, and it shows me the options (which is basically google maps with mobile websites that would actually work). There's no reason for every restaurant and delivery service to have their own app.
Totally agreed for mobile websites, with the exception for PWAs and mobile sites that rely on specific view ports being unchanged, like games for instance.
With no scrollbars it's hard to tell if something is zoomed in or not and you might be missing parts of the UI without noticing. Native apps don't zoom and neither should mobile sites pretending to be apps. Build accessibility into the UI.
Do you think Douglass Crockford didn't know that? He was being cheeky and doesn't care. This was also a huge pain point for JSHint and a lot of work went into undoing that by finding a single commit that didn't have the clause iirc.
I read this and it is interesting. I get why asking JS Hint contributors to re-submit/approve their changes is clear of the Do No Evil clause.
But, I don't understand why all changes before that (from JS Lint Day 1 until it was forked into JS Hint) aren't subject to that same clause. Why is the Eclipse Foundation not subject to it?
The Eclipse Foundation received their copy of JSLint under the MIT Expat license, not the default no-evil license.
> Meanwhile, the author of JSLint permitted the Eclipse Foundation to relicense a version of JSLint using the MIT Expat license so that it could be included in their project named Orion
I guess some people might find it cheeky or funny to build an entire software product that does something people want, and then make it impossible for most people to use by adding a silly licensing clause. I’d consider it a huge waste of time, but hey, it’s not my project.
If the licence is not compatible with our desired use we have the choice to move on our try negotiate different terms (or both: try for different terms and move on if compromise cannot be achieved).
No creator is under any obligation to make their stuff useful to us.
Not really. Nobody actually pays attention to open source software licences whatever you write in them. They're just window dressing. Who isn't violating the attribution requirements of 1000-odd npm dependencies?
> Nobody actually pays attention to open source software licences whatever you write in them. They're just window dressing.
Plainly untrue. Various companies (including Google and Apple) have strong opinions on the GPL licences, especially the GPLv3.
Many of us see it as a red flag when a seemingly Free and Open Source project turns out to use a licence approved by neither the FSF nor the OSI.
> Who isn't violating the attribution requirements of 1000-odd npm dependencies?
You may be right that much web frontend development is a sloppy free-for-all with no regard for compliance and no contact with the legal department, but not all software is developed on this basis.
That’s why attribution requirements are stupid. Of course, as a matter of politeness and ethics, one ought to acknowledge the work of others you build upon. But elevating it from an informal principle to a formal legal requirement puts people in the unpleasant position of having either to deal with endless and ever-changing attribution bureaucracy, or just ignore it all and hope nobody ever complains (or sues). Zero attribution licenses don’t do that to people.
It also makes it impossible for Open Source projects to use and depend on. This isn't a companies-vs-people thing; people and projects who care about their users should not go "meh, whatever" about software licensing.
And many people chose not to use it as a result, despite having no desire to do "evil". People can certainly license software however they like, and other people can complain about that and build replacements, as JSHint did.
> It's a linter, it doesn't require being incorporated into people's projects.
Many things do want to depend on tools that process source code, such as bundlers, IDEs, transpilers, and similar.
Wearing a Pebble Time right now. Works and looks great, but not 100% even with Rebble. Shame the company failed, the product was perfect for Android users.
Maybe you didn't venture out much, but you should realize that is _mostly_ exclusive to market street. One street of a thousand. Yes it occasionally happens elsewhere like any city, but Market and especially the tenderloin are infamous for the drug use and depravity.
Why people keep staying there instead of the hundreds of other and safer hotel locations? Maybe hotels need better regulated ratings to take into account the surrounding area.
Open to how you'd solve it. Fill up the overfilled jails and hospitals? Can't force people unless it's a 5150. You literally cannot stop what is happening without going full militarized police and how is that better?
Best thing you can do as a tourist is know where you are. It's no different than unsafe areas of Mexico and LA? You gonna stay near skid row?
SF weather and wealth is going to attract homeless and drugs, and unless you want to break the law to stop it, adapting is the next best thing.
Actually NVM it's just easier to shit on SF and act like everyone there is an idiot and the solution is simple.
The Bowery can be even worse then Market Street at times. There have been a couple of serial killers targeting rough sleepers over the last few years. The day to day experience of the Bowery is much safer than Market Street though because NYPD aggressively targets the area.
Good features for the price, decent pickup speed, gears are smooth, heated leather seats, interesting features like headlight wipers and night panel. Fun to drive and look great.
They are quirky and aesthetically distinguishing, especially all the orange and green.
Love my '95 Saab 900 SE turbo and will most likely never part with it if I can avoid it.
