Oh nice, I always thought that was for disabling multiple rules with a single line. Cheers!

deleted by creator

I guess that’s a tad better, though if the rule is named react-hooks/exhaustive-deps then we’re still not explaining why we’re disabling it.

What I’m really looking for is something that explicitly tells the programmer/code reader “this blows up into an infinite loop if we respect exhaustive deps, but here we don’t need exhaustive deps for the code to be sound”.

My own, hair-baked proposal: have the linter recognize [foo, baz /*, @causes-infinite-loop bar */] (or something along those lines) as an explicit, programmer-validated escape hatch for not respecting the exhaustive-deps rule.

As someone who started using react about 6 months before they introduced hooks, I remember there was a period where people were really complaining about having to manually reason about what went into every single hook dependency list. Eventually the linting rule was published. I distinctly remember appreciating the rule in situations where a variable that used to be a “plain” variable became a useState hook - it caught some existing uses of the variable in hooks that otherwise were unrelated to the code being changed.

I also distinctly remember being disappointed that there was no specific way to annotate code that needed to disable that rule to prevent infinite loops, just a generic // @eslint-ignore… I guess they still haven’t shipped a better way?

Same, it’s impressive how much it irks people.

My own hasty judgement is that [those upset] only speak English, have a prescriptivist take on language (albeit unconsciously), and have no idea how damaging hegemony and uniformity for their own sake can be.

Also they’re lazy and would rather shame someone than take on a little bit of discomfort to adapt to them.

I guess that makes it “judgements”, plural.

(youtube) explainer link for the unfamiliar : https://youtube.com/watch?v=ABpT6e-KlOo

Eleventh is a static site generator. You run it once, then straight up serve the files it output.

Server-side rendering is like running eleventy for each incoming webrequest (albeit only for the requested page(s) instead of the whole site).

Phind has been decent for me when I’m looking for prior art and/or research papers on something I’m trying to develop/implement. It’s nice to be able to pose a question as I would to a colleague and get references back that I can read for myself.

Sadly, it still hallucinates some stuff, and when it doesn’t it tends to give me references that are tangentially related to my query but don’t actually cover it.

Ok but if it allows anubis to judge the soul of my bytes as being worthy of reaching a certain site I’m trying to access, then the program is not making any calculations that I don’t want it to.

Would the FSF prefer the challenge page wait for user interaction before starting that proof of work? Along with giving them user a “don’t ask again” checkbox for future challenges?

To my knowledge, there is 1 feature that forgejo has that gitea doesn’t: it can generate a new ssh key for you at the click of a button that can be used to push repo changes to another git forge.

I have several personal repos on my forgejo instance that are each setup so that they mirror themselves onto my Codeberg account at noon every day.

I also have a gitea instance on a raspi on my local network that itself will push out changes on certain repos to the (public-facing) forgejo instance.

I can push and/or pull to any of the three origins as needed, but usually I just push to the gitea when I’m at home and the forgejo when I’m not, and let the mirroring take care of propagating changes to Codeberg.

Part of the problem is also that, while an acre of land can feed a family of 4, there’s no way to generate enough surplus from that single acre to be able to afford a tractor in the first place. So the tractor creates the need for much larger farm plots being owned by a single person, which way up all the supposed extra free time the automation/mechanized tool was supposed to bring.

In the end, less people can work the land to sustain themselves and the only people better off are those who already had more than enough to go buy.

If you have a fediverse account, you can comment on this article from your own instance. Search https://hackers.pub/ap/articles/0197de66-6d9c-7728-abed-b8a4996f3022 on your instance and reply to it.

Very cool to see, now if only those comments could show up here in Lemmy…

You buying at a grocery store is out of convenience, the alternative is learning how to hunt like a survival hunter.

At some point that was an alternative, but today the natural ecosystems have been so encroached upon by human civilization that we can’t just decide to become survival hunters - we’d simply starve. Grocery stores are all you have if you’re living in a high-rise apartment in most cities, for example. Most suburbs can’t support enough wildlife to then be hunted for survival by the humans living there.

Vegetable gardens might be a better analogy than survival hunting. There are even some initiatives being taken to break the cycle of dependency that grocery stores encourage, which I suspect is what @subignition@fedia.io is getting at: collective effort is needed beyond just letting the techies do their thing in their own corner, otherwise we all suffer. Everyone needs to move beyond their comfort zone at some point, for some amount of time - be it the techies teaching others, or the others learning a bit more about how their tools work.

the average user wants the convenience of easy to use software, because they don’t want to learn the alternative […] If everyone was like you, then easy to use software wouldn’t be selling so much.

I can’t tell if you are simply stating how the world currently is or claiming that it is destined to always be that way, but in either case I don’t see how “people prefer convenience” is a good argument against trying to help them get over that preference. I don’t think convenience is nor should be the end-all-be-all of existence, in fact it can be actively detrimental to life when prioritized.

Unless I’m mistaken, the average user wanted asbestos in their walls, lead in their paint, and asked their doctor for menthol cigarettes instead of regular ones when said doctor was prescribing them for stress. The average user in the USA couldn’t tell that their milk was full of pus and mixed with chalk to the point it was killing their babies, all for the convenience of still owners and milk producers. Their society had built up so much around the convenience of drinking milk in places that couldn’t produce it locally, that it took an Act of Congress as well as the development of technology to safely transport milk long distances before the convenience stopped killing people.

Don’t get me wrong, convenience is great when it doesn’t come at the expense of our well-being - in those cases it tends to dramatically improve our well-being. I tend to agree with @subignition@fedia.io that currently the software market is overly delivering convenience to the point that it is negatively affecting our collective well-being - with regards to software, at the very least.

Also, wasn’t Trump the reason the largest non-nuclear bomb in the USA arsenal was first used in combat? The bomb that had never been deployed in the almost 15 years since it’s creation specifically because the US military thought it would create too many civilian casualties?

The same Trump that allegedly wanted to nuke hurricanes to disrupt them before they hit the US’s coast?

The dude just wants to play with the shiny toys and see things go “boom”. He has literally stated to his own biographer that

When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same. The temperament is not that different."

(source: The Week)

I suppose it suits him just fine that Israel is now flirting with open warfare with their neighbors.

Paging Ray Bradbury… https://www.libraryofshortstories.com/storiespdf/the-veldt.pdf

I have gotten cynical to the point of assuming the “endgame” here is properly kicking off WW3, so that Trump gets an excuse to drop a nuke or two on an adversary.

“The last time we had a world war, we won it! We were the best - and we won it with our nukes, our big beautiful nukes - it’s really a shame we haven’t used them since, don’t you think? We ended the war by dropping 2 on Japan, and now Japan is our best friend. Why don’t we drop some nukes on Iran? Don’t we want them to be our friend?”

I don’t think anyone can host a relay right now aside from bluesky.

People can host their own data / Personal Data Server, which is somewhere between self-hosting a mastodon instance and creating an account on someone else’s instance. The actual equivalent would be self-hosting your masto account separately from any instance (which is just not a thing with the current state of mastodon nor activity pub).

I like the idea, but then who gets to decide who is and isn’t a credible source? Is it only intra-account verifying? Can anyone verify anyone else, or do you need to be authorized by bluesky to start verifying others?

Succinctly put, though I got some cognitive dissonance when the author wrote about bluesky being their choice of decentralized network to get involved with without even mentioning the hosting costs involved with running a bsky relay (or whichever component of the ATP network actually holds the data “firehose”).

According to this article it took a server that costs around $150/month over 4 days to spin up a working relay, most of which was spent ingurgitating half a terabyte of data (that’s what ended up on disk in any case). Far from exorbitant, yet if I want to self host for my own personal needs it’s still gobs more data and compute than any activity pub software needs.

Maybe my view of “decentralization as in democracy” is just fundamentally different from the author’s. I get the feeling that to them, as long as each friend group has 1 self-hoster in it then democracy through decentralization is preserved. This would make sense that they orient themselves towards something like bluesky and the AT protocol. Personally, I don’t think we should be satisfied with that level of decentralization/democracy - it’s a nice start, but we should strive for reaching at least 50% of people self-hosting an activity pub instance to truly achieve the type of decentralization that serves democracy. Of course, I’m not aware of any activity pub software that can be selfhosted by even 10% of the population, currently, so there’s definitely a lot of work to do before my vision is feasible.

Thank you!!!