>We did think about it for about three seconds - was it a betrayal to my parents, to my father's [wishes]?
And we decided, yes, it was a betrayal. But that's what children are for.
Suggestion for Kagi: If you haven't made the t-shirts yet, offer users to request/reserve one first. That way you won't ship to those who don't want it (though you won't ship to some who do, so maybe save some t-shirts on the side for those willing to contact you to ask if there's any left after the deadline)
Reading the blog post it sounds like users will get a credit toward a free shirt/stickers. They will still need to pay shipping, which should be enough to keep people from getting it just for the hell of it. After a period of time, if there are unclaimed shirts they will open them up to those users beyond the first 20k.
While it sounds like they will print 20k no matter what, it doesn’t seem like they will randomly ship them out to users. They really can’t, as they don’t have the addresses of all their users.
"Sizes are first come first serve" so I suppose they estimate how many of each size they need and then let people get a shirt as long as their size is available.
(Author) The advantage over chaining, at a compiler level, is that (absent compiler optimizations) you still save one branch. With chaining, you end up with a Maybe/Optional/whatever at the end of the expression, that `if` then has to unwrap separately. `breakelse` jumps directly to the else branch. That also makes it a bit easier to understand in the success case, imo, because you get rid of the error types immediately, you don't wrap them into a final outer optional type.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by multiple bindings? With if-let, binding to the variable is conditional, and it only happens if all parts of the chain return an actual value. Otherwise, as soon as one returns null, a jump can be made to the alternative branch. Am I missing something?
From what I've gathered from Catholic exorcists, demons adopt different personas, and shouldn't be trusted about anything they say. The only questions the exorcist asks are those pertaining to the case, all in the interest of breaking the claim of demons and expelling them, in the name of Christ, the stronger man from the parable. As the Lord says, Satan is a liar and a murderer from the start, and when he lies, he speaks his native tongue. What I'm saying, keeping a database of demons makes little sense.
That is not at all the conclusion the author draws from this experience of his. Here's more of the paragraph, you quoted:
>Earthly being open-source, you could already run your own Earthly remote runner (since we use Buildkit underneath, it was essentially a remote Buildkit), connect Earthly to it, and get similar benefits to Satellites even before this was a commercial offering. And so people did this on their own, hosting it in their own environment, without us managing it for them. Once we had this packaged up in a managed offering, people were flocking to it, mainly because they did not want to manage remote runners on their own.
The author blames the failure on not validating what the were building was what clients wanted.
Problem is, the issue doesn't go away because you ignore it.
Similarly to providing safe needles for heroin usage for example. If a heroin addict asks you for a safe needle and you say no, they're not gonna just give up and say "Well, better not do heroin then", but instead re-use needles from others or whatever else they can do. If you instead provide them with safe needles, at least you can eliminate some risk with the behavior, even if you don't eradicate the dangerous action fully.
