> bending the knee does not give you the benefits it once did
We’re talking about Apple. They’ve just been given carte blance to reprice their product line in America. I’m betting they walk away from this more profitable than ever.
(Their competitors are getting boned equally if not worse than they are, too.)
the argument is about things that are weird, any effect in a language that means you have to stop and think over scoping rules to figure out why it should be that way is obviously "weird" to my understanding of this word.
In short I'm not sure that they have misunderstood the scoping, they have probably understood it fine, they have remarked on the weirdness that different aspects of JavaScript enables.
Certainly with perfect understanding and knowledge of a language that you do not have to think about at all because it is so perfectly remembered nothing would ever be weird, it is the incidental behaviors of the language at time where you have to stop and think hey why is that, oh yeah, scoping rules and timeout in the call stack, damn!
>Use thrift stores, especially ones that give deep discounts for needy parents. No government will help you buy nicer things.
yeah, but I don't think there are useful thrift stores that will help you replace
8 windows
1 balcony door
a shower head every couple of months (maybe that sure, and they're cheap anyway, but it adds up)
a mac m1
2 tablets
1 phone
my front tooth (jumped up and hit me with his forehead, likes to hit things with his forehead, enjoys the sensation, knocked out my tooth)
damage to the floor when he broke the futon and the couch (although sure, the futon and couch can be taken care of from thrift stores of some sort)
the chain lock to the front door (Which freaked out my older daughter and sort of made me, huh, this thing sure wouldn't have stopped a really determined intruder)
and the stairs to upstairs (jumped up and down on it descending, and he is heavy and strong for his age)
stove, dishwasher, and washing machine and also maybe he was the one who broke the refrigerator - not sure. But he has damaged the new one which has a bunch of bumps in the metal front where he has hit it with his head.
aside from which, yes, he has destroyed lots of his clothes by chewing through them and he eats at least twice as much as what the country believe a child his age eats.
obviously the above list is what he has broken in the space of 4 years, and some of it we are not fixing but living with it broken (floor, stairs) but that is because we can't afford to fix it.
Yeah, sorry, I was being snarky. I think I was reacting because your original question just seemed naive ....
How do you expect you could affect taxation rules by discussing what other nations do, or fairness?
Especially assuming you are dealing with front-line staff.
Should you want to change taxation laws then you have to be able to argue for your need against other needs (parents with criminal children, parents with psych problem children, parents with sick children, parents with drug abusing children yadda yadda yadda).
I can only think of two options:
1: there is an art to getting the most out of government service workers. They can help you learn available rules and sometimes they can choose to bend rules in your favour. I don't have the skill but you can tell when someone has it: they get helped more than the average person. I'm not sure how one might learn that art. I'm not sure how you could find people that already have the art, who might help you. A few people are good at hacking around government rules and systems - but they are rare (and I'm very unsure how learnable the skill of working around rule systems is).
2: just deal with it yourselves. Whenever I see a parent dealing with the excessive costs, they rarely get much external help (mostly just parental help).
I know multiple parents with autistic (or similarly outlier children) from 3yr old to 45yr old. In New Zealand parents get some help in some areas but unfairly it seems the parents have to shoulder the majority of the costs and time.
The above doesn't seem helpful - and clearly I'm no expert - but I figure you've asked and I'll share my ignorant opinion.
well, not the original poster, but I have been managed by both kinds, and the best manager I ever had was not a former techie and the worst was a former programmer.
The worst manager did often say things that were sort of valuable and correct in a general way, like "well you don't actually know that because it hasn't been tested" which was of course true, but he also seemed to think he could tell people what the correct way to do something was without knowing the technology and the codebase. This often meant that I had to go to junior developers later, after a meeting, and say "concerning ticket X, T. didn't consider these things(listing the things), so that while it is true that we should in principle do what T. said, it will not be adequate, you will also need to do this - look at the code for this function here, it should be abstracted out in some way probably, this was my crappy way of handling the problem in desperation Y months ago."
Trying to explain to him why he was wrong was impossible in itself, he was a tech genius evidently, and you just had to give it up after a bit, and figure that at some time in the future the decisions would be reversed after "we learned" something.¨
on edit: in the example I give the manager as I said was correct in what he wanted done, but as I said it was inadequate as the bug would keep recurring if only that was done, so more things had to be done that were not as pretty or as pure as what he wanted.
If I were making a component rendering type library before React I would probably end up making some fake attributes on HTML elements the way Angular and a lot of other people do. It's a pretty simple idea. Pretty much everybody was doing it about the time of Backbone and Angular etc. etc. I'm sure you can think of other examples.
But whoever first came up with JSX said hey, if we're already making non standard HTML why not go all the way, allow you make your own semantic tree that we "render down" to HTML.
This of course allows you in fact separate out the media target - HTML, Native App, PDF, graphics from your renderable representation of that in code, and thus have different renderers for the same declarative way of structuring content.
So to me JSX is actually a sensible step up in abstraction layer, although not all the way yet, because you still need to have lots of specific knowledge of your particular media rendering target.
This is perhaps of particular interest to me as in about 2004 I was working on a media management system where the idea was you would feed in multiple markup formats, and a configuration for the media, and then use an in house declarative language to dynamically do things in each media, without having to have much understanding of how the media worked internally because our rendering pipeline took care of that - generated pdf, DHTML website (fancy menus), HTML help, and emails - with of course possibility of saving data for reuse in different media and cross media styling (use same company logos, color schemes, email addresses without having to write code for them in each media etc.)
I would never want to write template files in something other than JSX at this point. Every library that does binding via HTML attributes is a huge step back, as far as I'm concerned.
I'd also say React's one way data binding was a big step forward when it was released. Where it (and TBH, many other SPA frameworks at the time) missed the boat was form handling, which it turns out is like 90% of the Internet and internal applications.
I wouldn't say it's 90% (although my last quibble regarding percentages in this very thread got downvoted to 0) but it is tedious and sort of difficult because of the tediousness, but not sure I have ever seen any solution for forms that made me say, damn I like working with this.
What is truly remarkable about it is that it’s just JavaScript (after some transpilation), which means you can easily use JavaScript’s control structures. Conditional rendering has never been so easy!
reply