Technically it feels the same to me. Content-wise netflix is kind of a dumpster buffet, with a tons of meh stuff and a couple of really nice things. Disney has less content, but almost no low quality fluff.
Yes. Where ‘quality’ just means halfway decent original programming that I can stand to watch for a half hour or so. I am having trouble finding that ‘quality’ on Netflix lately, for example.
Even tho Disney+ isn’t available to me in Singapore. Looking via a VPN there wasn’t anything I wanted to watch? While Netflix has tons of stuff me and the wife watch together.
> Disney has less content, but almost no low quality fluff.
I mean, if you count all the content they own and you already saw before on cinema or other medias then you're right.
But after paying 1.5 years for Disney+ I think I'm paying 120 dollars a year just to watch Baby Yoda. I cannot find any other content over there really worth the Disney+ membership price.
On the other hand it's really hard for me to decide what to watch on netflix because of the amount of content I'm interested.
> I mean, if you count all the content they own and you already saw before on cinema or other medias then you're right.
If you don't count that then Disney+ probably isn't for you. It's ideal for parents who want a bunch of good kids movies and shows. Mandalorian, although it was the "killer app" is an outlier. The rest of the original content I've watched on there is almost literally advertisements for Disneyland. Just buy a membership for a month and watch Mando.
The television content is mixed on Disney+ It’s for children so I may not have the best perspective but most of it is kind of weak. The marvel is star wars stuff is strong and they have the Disney movies, including the n-th straight to video sequels you never heard of.
I thought Mandalorian was the definition of low quality fluff personally. Only saw season 1. Weakly designed fight scenes, several filler episodes with pretty poor plots (most egregiously the prison one), and my personal least favorite, the super ai droid that 360 no scopes everybody, dual wielding pistols. I've asked a few times why people thought it was good and most often the answer is Baby Yoda (on HN).
It's easy to do things slowly, by the book, taking all the time in the world, while the world is waiting. It's part of the skill and mastery to know which corners to cut and which things are essential and which can be fixed later, and judge the effort to result ratio accurately.
LN situation is not perfect, but improved greatly last year.
With wallets like Breeze & Phoenix initial onboarding of new users to LN is quite painless because they offer in-flight inbound channel creation (for a tiny fee). So you can install and accept payment right away. Strike mobile app allows to easily fund your LN wallets with smallish amounts of money ($1-$1000) very quickly - just plug in your debit card.
I have been kicking tires paying for my coffee in LN-accepting Palo Alto coffee shop before the lockdown and it worked OK. But in other situations LN payments did have some problems (usually lack of receiving liquidity on the receiver end).
Another road to Bitcoin scaling for payments is using sidechains like Liquid. I haven't tried it myself yet.
But generally I agree that payments on Bitcoin are not critical right now, as it is becoming a trust-less collateral and saving device for bigger institutions for who $10 tx fees are irrelevant. It might however force smaller investors to try out sidechains/LN for casual payments.
Seconded. Especially for Go, because it's mostly a lowest common denominator of language features it's not hard to write the code itself. The problem is that the module system is different and had plenty of changes along the years, What I would really like is an up to date "learn how to handle Go project in 30 minutes" tutorial (initialize new project with all best practices, add modules, publish, fork&clone&submit&pr including 3rd party submodules, test, CI, profile, debug).
5. go get -u github.com/gin-gonic/gin to add gin (web lib) for your project. Same for any other package. The will be added to your go.mod and go.sum files
5.1 import "github.com/gin-gonic/gin" in your code to use gin
5.2 package may have more than one major version (tag). If you want to use package at latest tag 2 - you add '/v2' when you 'go get' the package (i.e. go get -u github.com/gin-gonic/gin/v2)
6. git commit && git push to publish
7. Not sure what to you mean by 'fork&clone&submit&pr including 3rd party submodules'. You may use vendoring but in most cases you don't need it as you have your dependencies in your go.mod && go.sum files. You may want to read more about vendoring and gomodproxy though.
8. Testing is pretty easy but I guess you want and article about best practices? I won't post any link as I find the topic as too controversial regardless of the language\stack
9. CI - not sure that does this have to do with the language
10. haven't done much profiling or debugging to fill you in.
I was almost with you but please don't share that repo. It's a terrible layout and the docs aren't accurate. The issues are full of Go community folk saying it's misleading and looks official but isn't.
I have had this issue with my current golang projects. I haven't found any clear standard for project layout. We have a bunch of microservices with grpc api endpoints, and some which are event driven. Has anyone found a better resource? As it is, even our internal projects are fairly inconsistent in their project structure, which is a bit annoying.
> Not sure what to you mean by 'fork&clone&submit&pr including 3rd party submodules'.
Sometimes a 3rd party library needs a fix, and you want to fork it, add your changes, and run with it like that until your changes land in the upstream.
You can replace with local or remote package (for example if you have published fixed version somewhere and what your teammates to use it too until your changes land in the upstream.)
Another poster made this point, but I think this explains the different feel: you've dropped your working days by only 20%, but you've increased your free days by 50%. Even though it's still 4-work/3-off, it feels like a lot more.
The complaint is that with lazyIO, even if your code does the write before closing the file, the actual order the operations occur in could change, to put the close first.
If you look at the lazyIO documentation, you will see:
>Although this module calls unsafeInterleaveIO for you, it cannot take the responsibility from you. Using this module is still as unsafe as calling unsafeInterleaveIO manually. Thus we recommend to wrap the lazy I/O monad into a custom newtype with a restricted set of operations which is considered safe for interleaving I/O actions.
> The lazyio package is not what people are talking about when they say "lazy IO".
I don't know which people you are talking about, but it clearly was in this specific subthread which started with a complaint about “LazyIO”, not “lazy IO”, and where the only use of “lazy IO” in a post before yours was in a post where all previous references were to “lazyIO” and it's specific package documentation, and contextually the “lazy IO” references was about the same thing, not something else.
You can write bad code in any language if you try hard enough. No one should use lazyio (or any library) for important work without checking the code or at least the docs to see if the code is intentionally bad (and renaming "unsafeInterleaveIO" to "lazyIO.InterleaveIO" is intentionally bad).
One of Haskell's known weaknesses is that there are no curated catalogs of high quality libraries. The industrial strength stuff sits on package servers alongside the broken toys.
I once got an apology from a major luminary in Haskell, author of dozens of high quality packages, because I used a package he wrote that turned out to be an abandoned broken experiment, but not documented as such.
I'm a paid user, and I like the emphasis on the lightweight sites, but it's been years and it still misses some basic features like ... and index page.
