Your point was “some people don’t think it’s a no-brainer,” which I addressed, and then you whipped out that line. I’ve been around long enough to know what that means: that your replies would be inflammatory garbage from then on. Learn how to interact with people online in a civil way and maybe you’ll actually be able to maintain a conversation long enough for it to be constructive

Congratulations, you read the headline.

Learn how to have a conversation

That’s only article-worthy because it is a rare occurrence and an increasingly controversial opinion. And even that maintainer didn’t abandon TS completely—he said that would be “daft”—he just moved to types via JSDoc which is run through the TS compiler, as well as to .d.ts files.

Well, yes. TypeScript mitigates one big problem with JavaScript (type safety). That’s why it exists. It’s a dumb idea to choose vanilla JS over TS if you’re starting a new project today, IMO.

Whether or not you should use TS as your core language is debatable and situational, but in terms of using TS instead of JS, yeah, that’s a no brainer.

Ah, okay, I understand now. Rocks are nutritious—and whisker pants.

Out of curiosity, would you explain your reply and your immediate parent’s comment for me? “Sez” - a bit old but didn’t seem too weird, but then: “date of poisoning” - are you implying an LLM wrote that and “sez” has something to do with pinpointing some poisoning of the model?

100% agree

I think we mostly agree. And I do agree that “flawed security can be worse than no security at all.” I think, though, that this doesn’t make security worse, just that it doesn’t make it that much better.

But even simple filters can make a significant difference: maybe you remember the early-ish Lemmy debacle of turning off captchas for signups by default, ostensibly because captchas are now completely defeated… which led to thousands and thousands of bot accounts being created pretty much immediately across a bunch of instances, and the feature being turned back on by default.

Both things can be true. It definitely is better for security. It’s pretty much indisputably better for security.

But you know what would be even better for security? Not allowing any third-party code at all (i.e., no apps).

Obviously that’s too shitty and everyone would move off of that platform. There’s a balance that must be struck between user freedom and the general security of a worldwide network of sensitive devices.

Users should be allowed to do insecure things with their devices as long as they are (1) informed of the risks, (2) prevented from doing those things by accident if they are not informed, and (3) as long as their actions do not threaten the rest of the network.

Side-loading is perfectly reasonable under those conditions.

Good point, but I still think incel carries a certain connotation of misogyny with it, though. Otherwise you would just say “virgin”

(Maps missing New Zealand is a meme)

Maybe if they’re really young and weren’t on the internet when the word became popular, sure

Not really. Incel implies a level of indoctrination into a misogynistic POV that has you convinced that you’re better off alone. It’s not the same as insulting someone for simply not having had sex yet.

edit: not that I think either is a productive thing to call another person

Pagination query params can be in the URL params, but that’s not normal at all. They’re pretty much always use query params, and it’s very reasonable to do so. Filtering, search, and pagination all typically go in query params.

What is this, 2007?

I think it’s pretty obvious what the difference is between literal toddlers getting to vote (read: parents getting multiple votes) and black people/women getting to vote. I’m not arguing for meritocracy or even what the voting age should be. I’m arguing against the idea that there should be no minimum voting age.

That is just a very stupid idea. The best thing for all of us everywhere is for the most rational and well-informed people to vote. The fact that everyone gets a vote is unfortunate for all of us because that includes voters who vote against the public interest, but it is necessary for a free democracy. Children and even teenagers have simply not had enough time on this earth to make an informed decision. Even if you want to make the argument that some are informed enough, they are far, FAR fewer than in the adult populace. You do not want to broaden that window.

There is legitimate research on the effects of ingesting methylene blue. Don’t confuse that with pseudoscience. There’s probably plenty of pseudoscience around it, but it’s not (at its core) naturopathy/homeopathy/voodoo.

You mean ammonium, jsyk

The alternative being…? What, third party candidates? Are you kidding? The only alternative to “blue no matter who” is more “red” and as you can see, there is literally zero support from “red” whereas there’s at least a substantial fraction from “blue.”

I don’t think many people who said “blue no matter who” are actually very surprised by this, because the phrase is not coming from die hard supporters, it’s coming from anyone with basic logic skills.