Note those are not mutually exclusive. It's entirely coherent to believe you find a tool hard to use for reasons relating to the tool itself, and that the task you're trying to accomplish is also difficult independently of that.
Analogy: imagine trying to give a good presentation with a horrible text-to-speech (or translation) system. Just because good presentations are hard that doesn't mean you don't get to complain about the program being terrible.
Yes, but now you're getting into "there are two types of languages, the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses".
There are obviously flaws and issues and annoyances in js world, but a lot of those come from having to solve much harder problems (compared to say, do a sql query and turn the results into json).
I'll bite. In essence a user interface just presents the data it got from the server in some nice looking shape, and sends any edits and button presses back. Should be simple, right?
Think about the presenting data part of it. Perhaps you have a table of data, prices of tickets or some such. You could literally just wrap each item in a <td> tag and each row in a <tr> tag and that would indeed be easy.
But people generally want and expect more. How about color coding the rows to make them easier to scan left to right or sorting the table by each column or paginating through more data than can easily displayed on one screen or maybe you're doing "infinite scroll" instead.
None of these things are impossible of course, and people have done them so many times and in so many different ways that there are dozens of libraries you can use and hundreds of tutorials, but even so, compare that to the "select from table turn to json" equivalent.
The SQL can be more than a bit tricky, but aside from that, JSON is extremely well defined and specified, even without a library you can just read the specs and do it. Wrapping it in a HTTP response and returning it and so on is likewise very well specified and if you can read, you can follow the instructions on how to do it.
Creating a UI that works the way a user wants to is the opposite of all that.
Of course, one of the major differences here is that at any point you can just stop improving the UI. Maybe you stop after wrapping it in the table html. The UI will certainly work, for a very specific definition of work. JSON is considerably more boolean. It either is a valid JSON document or it isn't. You can ask a computer to check for you. You can't ask a computer to check if your users enjoy using your table.
> Playing devil's advocate, what are your security expectation when someone steals your device? Is it acceptable that they immediately gain control of all services available through your them, such as email address, bank accounts, and investment portfolios?
Legally they have no right to anything. Physically, they access whatever they access. That's how it's been forever. I don't get the point of the question.
What are you talking about? The scenario involves someone stealing from you. Do you think the legality of it is a dissuasion?
Also, OP's point was that "Physical ownership = real ownership."
> Physically, they access whatever they access. That's how it's been forever. I don't get the point of the question.
The whole point is that that's not the expectation or desire of every single person around you. Not one.
That's the fact you're not understanding. The ability to lock down a device and prevent unauthorized third parties from accessing it is a strong ask by everyone, not only "megacorps". The ability to track down and remotely pull a kill switch are sold as premium features by some manufacturers. Mobile operators have for a long time the ability to block cellphones by IMEI to prevent theft. A very popular product from one of the biggest companies in the world is a small tag that consumers can attack to their property to be able to find them and recover them.
And in spite of all these facts, are we suppose to pretend no one wants control access to their hardware to prevent unauthorized access from third parties?
> Also, OP's point was that "Physical ownership = real ownership."
You don't have "ownership" over something you stole. You have possession of it. Possession != ownership.
> The whole point is that that's not the expectation or desire of every single person around you. Not one.
Then you're misunderstanding what people are arguing. People want the owner to be the ultimate authority. The owner gets to encrypt what they like, expose what they like, track what they like, trust megacorp they like, etc. And if a thief steals the device, they get whatever they get as a result of the owner's decisions. Which could be all their data, or a visit from the local police, depending on how the owner prepared for it.
> You don't have "ownership" over something you stole. You have possession of it. Possession != ownership.
You need to develop your functional literacy skills because you clearly are failing to even understand the topics being discussed, let alone the arguments going either way.
You were literally saying "not one" person (period!) wants the ability to control their own device. Clearly such people exist, even if we aren't the majority.
What is wrong about the OPs arguments that suggests a failure of literacy on their part?
If you want a device that is locked down by the manufacturer so it only runs software they approve of, in the name of security, that is a tradeoff you should be allowed to make, and the free market is ready to accomodate your desire. Unfortunately, those of us who want the opposite are not so lucky currently.
Is it really impossible to see for you why some people have a problem with this situation persisting, and with comments like yours further normalizing it?
Hi, also chiming in as someone who also would like to stop cheering when these kinds of vulnerabilities are found, and I'll do it when manufacturers stop treating me, the person buying their products, like the thief in your example.
> That's like saying a birthday column that is never before 1970 in the current data should be restricted to years after that date.
No it's not, because they specifically started with the premise that the field was initially intentionally non-null and was only temporarily made nullable for migration purposes. That is obviously not the situation you are describing, right?
I get wanting some level of portability, but what kind of systems do you still encounter (and want to run your scripts on) that have sh yet lack Bash? I would've expected that to be the baseline nowadays.
For me it's small alpine containers running in k8s, and trying to get weird stuff running on my kobo ereader (can quickly get to a chroot with bash, but the base system doesn't have it).
> The general situation (no prospects) is aiui fairly typical. Which makes it not news, and therefore not much of an omission at all much less a critical one.
Whether it is "news" or not affects whether you choose to report on the story. It is not relevant to the context you provide when you report on in the content of said story.
> "Dog bites man" is not news; "man bites dog" is news.
That's a headline, not the content. If a man ended up in jail because his hand was bloody, and you decide to report on it, it absolutely behooves you to mention that it was because a dog bit him, vs. letting readers wonder if he's some sort of criminal.
Am I missing something or is that bold claim obviously wrong on its face? This seems like a Go deficiency (lack of atomicity for it pointers), not some sort of law about programming languages.
Can you violate memory safety in C# without unsafe{} blocks (or GCHandle/Marshal/etc.)? (No.)
Can you write thread-unsafe code in C# without using unsafe{} blocks etc.? (Yes, just make your integers race.)
Doesn't that contradict the claim that you can't have memory safety without thread safety?
This sounds elegant in theory but very thorny in practice even with a standards change, at least in C++ (though I don't believe the issues are that particular to the language). Like how do you want the equivalent of std::cout << your_different_str to behave? What about with third-party functions and extension points that previously took strings?
This is what stops me from dual-booting. I don't enjoy Windows as much as the next person, but dual booting inevitably requires me to just duplicate logging into services and installing the same programs in both OSes, and then if I don't boot into one of the OSes for a while, I end up having to wait for updates (admittedly this is a much worse problem on Windows, but it's not not a problem for Linux) and any other things that need to happen just so I can use the computer.
FWIW you have a partial solution here which is to run a VM that boots into the same system that you also dual boot into. It's still inconvenient, but not nearly as bad as having to terminate your app and reboot.
Do you have your phone by you all the time? Mine is always sitting somewhere, probably charging. On my laptop I just get a notification instantly showing me an email preview without me having to do anything. Having to go check my phone isn't a substitute for that.
> Like what? Something taking long, serious, and business/work related?
Like replying to a message? Going to fetch your phone and type on it is way more painful from than just pressing alt-tab and doing it on the computer.
> Like what? Something taking long, serious, and business/work related?
Do you have nothing long or serious outside of work? I just had to fill out some forms and do some shopping yesterday online for my personal life. That'd have been painful on the phone.
> Then you are stopping to play anyway.
Stopping the app loses your exact state... that's kind of the whole point of pausing the game.
> Core CPI continues to print lower than street expectations, for five consecutive months now. Far lower than what the Fed is concerned about, and certainly leagues lower than what the consumer expects.
Haven't a ton of the tariffs been delayed? To what extent have they actually been in effect?
reply