Canadian software engineer living in Europe.
I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding the above.
In your first example, you change an attribute of an object. In your case you called it .value but could just as well have been called .jacket.
In the second case you replaced one immutable object with another. You didn’t change the “value” attribute of 1002 to 1001. You replaced the entire object, 1002 with a new one: 1001.
That’s a very complicated way to explain it though.
It’s like putting your friend Sarah on a bike and then giving her Christina’s jacket. You haven’t changed the fact that Sarah is on the bike and Christina isn’t.
I look at the number of (hopefully recent) committers and whether they’re human or not.
You sound like a reasonable person who’s given up, and I get that. Given everything we see, it may even be the rational choice, but it’s not the moral one. It’s fine if you want to check out, but that doesn’t explain the cheerleading for policy that will make everything worse. It turns you from a bystander to an antagonist.
If this planet is going to end in fire, I have to believe that Good people are going to fight for it, even if we know we can’t win because “if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do”.
So this is what we’ve come to.
First it was “global warming isn’t real”, then it was “it is, but it’s not our fault”, then “it’s our fault, but there’s nothing we can do about it”, and now you’re taking the position of “it’s all gonna burn anyway, so I might as well get mine.”
Putting the emotional argument aside for a moment, this is a blisteringly naive position to take. In a world on fire, and with Canada’s terrain the way it is, what could possibly make you think that your home isn’t going to be burning next year? A “full stomach”? In a world on fire? Where do you think the food is going to come from? What in your head tells you that you’re going to be able to afford to feed yourself or your family in a world where crop yields are cratering everywhere? The people with the money, who stand to profit further from policies like the one you’re supporting here will gleefully let you die and not even notice.
For every litre of oil & gas Canada leaves in the ground, the cost of accessing those fossils elsewhere increases. Driving up the price drives divestment and innovation everywhere, and that means fewer burning forests and a better chance of survival.
While it’s true that resource extraction can drive an economy, extracting resources that literally burn the future is at-best shortsighted… extractive if you will. We could be pushing money into electrification, transport, and education, fields in desperate need of support that objectively lead to a stronger economy nation-wide. With the US cratering, we could position ourselves as a cultural hub, or a manufacturing bridge between Asia and Europe… but instead Carney is choosing short-term profits for private companies (protected by public funds!) and increasing our already sizeable contribution to burning the world.
But I guess it’s ok if a few people have some jobs for a few years. You best hope your home isn’t next on the to-burn list.
It also burns the planet. We kinda need that.
It was surprisingly common, though due to the cost of buying tapes, it wasnt as common as it is now.
VHS tapes have this nifty feature where you could store video on it in 3 different formats. While the tape from the rental place was stored in the format that fit roughly 2hrs on a tape, you could record three 2hr movies to a tape if you used the lower quality EP format (I think that was the acronym).
This lead to people like my friend’s dad keeping shelves of tapes with hastily scrawled labels on them for 3 different movies or 6 different episodes.
All you needed for any of this was 2 VCRs, which from the early 90s were pretty affordable.
Am I the only one that thinks it’s a little silly to blog $2B on a hybrid when you can just run wires along the tracks and go full electric? Given that the grid clearly needs investment, you could expand its capacity and range at the same time with theoretically limited costs.
That was great. This is why I subscribe here.
He’s pissing off the right people!
This is why these rich motherfuckers chose to donate to such causes. They don’t see it as a donation, they think they’re buying a museum to showcase whatever they want.
That’s very cool. Hopefully GNOME will steal this idea one day.
Hopefully, this includes a way too launch a new tab with a specified container using only the keyboard.
I swear, the stupid of these people must be contagious. It’s the only thing that explains how they’re not all laughed out of every gathering.
That won’t do in my case 'cause I need to share multiple windows throughout the session as I switch between my terminal/IDE/browser etc.
[I’ve now edited the initial question to reflect this]
The problem is that I need to switch workspaces rapidly as part of the share: terminal → browser → IDE → browser → IDE → terminal, etc. I can’t be constantly going back and toggling which window I’m sharing.
[I’ve now edited the initial question to reflect this]
That was a frustrating read. Dude gets screwed by Microsoft who effectively steals his code and rebrands it as theirs and then he goes on to talk about why he prefers MIT.
That’s understandable, though one of the other commenters suggested the LGPL which might make for a good fit for your case. Here’s a comparison with the other two if you’re interested.
The AGPL is just the GPL with extra rules requiring sharing the code even if you expose it exclusively via a service.
Who’s killing them I wonder?