along with most modern languages… it’s the way we deal with async when you don’t want callback hell. it’s just a complex problem domain
like… what… JITs are complex so that’s a problem for V8 specifically?
along with most modern languages… it’s the way we deal with async when you don’t want callback hell. it’s just a complex problem domain
like… what… JITs are complex so that’s a problem for V8 specifically?


they’re talking about inheritance as a suggested new way to pay for your copilot subscription
it’s like how the linux kernel isn’t semver: the number after the decimal point has a maximum of .19 and then the first number increments
except that one time
kernel version 4.20 is the only .20 kernel version


a great illustration of the dunning-kruger effect


hard disagree on what belongs in the same commit history… a single merge should be an entire feature, and your commit history should read like a change log


Squashed commits are not atomic … overall task requires modifying multiple different systems
that’s why monorepos exist
i’d say squashed commits aren’t always atomic, but this is one of the biggest reasons people add the complexity of a monorepo: if changes cross multiple systems, ideally their merge/revert should be an atomic operation
you either have deployment complexity (ensuring the feature is in all deployed systems before switching over), code complexity (dealing with the feature only maybe exiting in parts of the system), or repo complexity (where tools manage a monorepo and thus commits and PR/MRs are atomic across your system)
they’ll mug ya for a ciggie all right!
okay but like there are actual ways of doing gendered spaces in australia… or at least victoria
here in melbourne we have the laird - a gay bar that is a male only space. and australia-wide we have female only gyms. they have an exemptions to the equal opportunity act and are allowed to deny entry based on gender. you have to apply to the state for them
ignoring what you actually think about those examples specially, imo they’d have a pretty good case to get exemptions should they apply for them since it’s art… it’s more a case (imo) of not doing their paperwork and getting the correct permissions… boring? sure… necessary? definitely
though with those exemptions you must strictly adhere to your own gender requirements otherwise you’ll lose it
either… some apps have just started to do single factor login with just email, profile options can be optional, if there are required fields or terms of service to agree to then that can come after email validation
i think these days the best practice for mobile apps re retention (other than sso or passkey) is to just ask for an email, then from the validate link continue with register
reason being that more steps to register means more ways people are likely to drop out of the flow, and this is basically about as short as it can be
when the user has validated their email, then they’re more invested so they are more likely to complete
that also fits nicely with what we’re talking about with good security


the old logo still exists. this is a new mascot intended to increase user connection to the browser by providing a friendly anthropomorphised front for actions taken by the firefox team, browser, and congratulating users on taking actions. in furtherance of this idea, kit is represented by ambiguous pronouns when written about in order to avoid unnecessary gendering, and allow the user to imply their own gender as they like


that line is from the branding guidelines for kit
whilst it is legitimate, it misrepresents the purpose of both kit and branding guidelines: kit is a feature meant to invoke feelings; not a character having made a decision about its gender


we don’t care about the kits genders but mozilla cares about it being ambiguous because kit is a character meant to increase feelings of personal connection with the user by being able to be interpreted however the user likes (female, male, or non-binary)


in both the intro blog post and the branding guidelines mozilla does bring up the new (complimentary; not replacement) mascots pronouns as explicitly non-binary


the firefox is explicitly (in the case of mozilla firefox) neither fox nor red panda
https://brand.mozilla.com/d/5UkPdpbtt8LS/visual-elements#/-/mascot-1
Our mascot is a Firefox — not a fox, not a red panda. It’s not a real-life animal, it’s Firefox’s own unique creature.


it even: the original source of the non-binary claim is an anti-woke blog post about them removing the old mascot and replacing it with a non-binary mascot, when in fact mozilla had a logo rather than full expression of a mascot, and now they’re a fully formed branding representation of the firefox which includes non-gendered pronouns (as a feature of the characters function; not as an explicit choice about gender representation)


but that was again not about removing the dino as much as as it was about differentiating mozilla from firefox by taking the mozilla identity from firefox because mozilla is more than firefox and behaves differently to firefox, and giving firefox its own identity which is more friendly


they do make explicit mention of non-gendered pronouns in their branding guidelines for kit. the intro blog post is an expression of those guidelines
but every announcement by mozilla makes it clear that kit isn’t about taking a stance on gender: it’s simply explicitly about not taking a stance on gender
eventually they’ll just sell warm pizza food cubes and avoid the hassle of yeast all together because consistency is exactly what everyone wants, … right?