Robber 2: So how do we get the money?
Robber 1: That's the beauty of it, bro. They deposit the money into our bank accounts, week after week, month after month. They're not even gonna know they're being robbed! And then 20-30 years later, we walk out the front door like nothin' even happened.
My biggest pointer would be to remember that Java & JavaScript aren't named that way by coincidence. They're two different approaches to a similar problem. Java suffers from Enterprise Development (eg: Enterprise FizzBuzz[0]), JavaScript suffers from Ultimate Accessibility (eg: how many questions on Stack Overflow conflated jQuery and JS?).
> How should exceptions be managed? [...] Has there been a debate about best practice? Where can I find it?
I suggest you handle the errors you can and otherwise let it crash.[1][2] Debates in NodeJS-land have steered towards more monadic/Result-like structures and working synchronous-looking try/catch onto async/await. NodeJS and its various components are open source, you'll have a lot of luck looking around on GH for issues & PRs related to a feature -- same for the language, ECMAScript[3] officially.[4]
Since you mentioned Clojure, have you looked at ClojureScript?[5] That may be a good entry to JS authors & articles you'd enjoy.
> I have the impression that NodeJS is a bit more magical than the JVM [...] Is that correct? Where are good resources on this subject?
As other replies have mentioned, you're really talking about V8[6] for the "JSVM" executing that code. A thing I've seen throw some people for a loop is how minimalist the specification actually is.[7] The magic in NodeJS is certainly from V8 and the rate of optimizations there but also libuv,[8] what actually powers the infamous event loop.
[2]: _Most_ kinds of errors will cause the process to crash if you don't handle them, https://nodejs.org/dist/latest-v16.x/docs/api/errors.html . Promise rejections don't (yet) though it will log a warning, and callback-based APIs will always consist of an [error, data] tuple for the arguments
[7]: "ECMAScript as defined here is not intended to be computationally self-sufficient; indeed, there are no provisions in this specification for input of external data or output of computed results. Instead, it is expected that the computational environment of an ECMAScript program will provide not only the objects and other facilities described in this specification but also certain environment-specific objects, whose description and behaviour are beyond the scope of this specification except to indicate that they may provide certain properties that can be accessed and certain functions that can be called from an ECMAScript program." https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-overview
> You can just look at pure user counts and see they are more usable/accessible overall
User counts are a poor comparison when you consider how much the pool of potential users has grown.
As points to reference, Microsoft Windows 95 sold 7 million copies in its first 5 weeks so call it ~73 million copies sold the first year.[0]
20 years later in 2015, Samsung, Apple, and Huawei combined sold ~73 million phones across 5 models.[1] Windows 10, released that same year, had Microsoft shooting for it installed on 1 billion devices within 3 years.[2]
2005 estimates 1 billion (or 16% of the global population) online. 2020 estimates 4.9 billion (or 63% of the global population) online.[3] A million users used to be a big deal not that long ago.[4]
Not that I disagree we've gotten better at some things but Outlook Express (newsgroups) and mIRC (irc) seemed plenty accessible to millions of non-technical users.
> Not that I disagree we've gotten better at some things but Outlook Express (newsgroups) and mIRC (irc) seemed plenty accessible to millions of non-technical users.
This was my experience as well decades ago. Unfortunately, people claim that Usenet and/or irc are to technical for the average user to figure out. I guess the skill level of the average user has gone down in the interim.
Clients like Free Agent had a three-pane design that preceded iTunes' by years and I wouldn't doubt was the inspiration for its layout. New users today would feel right at home with it.
Forte Agent was the only reason that I had a windows PC in the mid/late 90s. Yep an IXer posting with Agent may have made me the butt of the joke, but that was some of the most intuitive software ever written.
The wording is probably something like "return after finished mission or within one year" because the equipment is loaned. I'd expect terms to vary wildly based on what the equipment is and who is receiving it.
As an aside, wording seems to be an important part of formulating these requests too. There was an interesting example used in coaching correct requests. Don't say you need blankets to keep detainees warm. Instead say you need blankets so that LEOs can provide detainees with warmth. Important apparently bc the property is primarily for the benefit of LEOs.
I think most of the Monty Hall confusion comes from focusing too much on the question and the math and missing the important part: The confusing setup is part of the game! Essentially it works like this:
Host: Contestant, please choose one of the 3 doors
Contestant: I choose door #1
Host: Confusing jibber-jabber to raise tension and keep this fun to watch
Contestant: I don't know what to do!
Host: Do you think the prize is behind your selection, door #1, or behind any of the others?
Expressed this way there's no confusion but it's the exact same problem. The contestant first selected 1/3 doors and the host is offering to let Contestant keep that 1/3 or choose the other 2/3. Any obfuscation in between is intentional for the sake of the game.
If it helps any, you're supposed to be misled by the setup.
Monty could have asked the question as "Do you want to stick with the door you chose or do you think it's in one of the other two?" and skipped even opening one of them but that wouldn't have been as fun to watch.
> the new feature sees the company check accounts registered in adults’ names if
> they are playing games between 10:00PM and 8:00AM. The company will then run a
> facial recognition test and, if it identifies someone who is not the account
> holder, they’ll be booted offline. “Anyone who refuses or fails face
> verification will be treated as a minor,” according to a machine translation of
> Tencent’s QQ post.
My favorite working situations are when asking "stupid" questions and/or burning 6-12 hours on a subject is normalized and endorsed. I don't expect to live long enough to transcend anecdote, but both are necessary to learn and that's almost always important. I certainly had this in academic environments but they were somewhat cloistered or the educators expected them to be. In jobs like sysadmin/programming 6-12 hours on a thing could be 1 day or 15.
The 30-90 minute rule is to force people to search for answers themselves. If you don't know why that's necessary, I encourage you to spend several hours answering questions on sites you browse for answers (SO, HN, reddit, IRC, twitter, discord, slack, zoom, signal, mailing lists, GH issues, bugzilla, phpbb, anything) -- it'll take less than a week. People exist that don't do basic reading or research and will expect you to do everything for them. You'll get jaded.
The downside to this environment is a sort of pathological self-reliance. That's when these rules become upper limits: to keep someone from chasing waterfalls ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoKufWbP_L4 ). Collaboration always helps, some personal research is always needed... when to mix them varies.
> This may feel like cheating, but it’s okay! Examples are not merely reusable templates but tools for learning, hinting at subjects for study. “Breaking” an example by tinkering—changing stuff and seeing what happens—helps you achieve understanding faster than passive reading.
I haven't had to use d3 in anger for some time but have an idea that means I need to re-learn it; I haven't finished yet but this is a great article. Thanks all for writing and/or sharing it.
> When collaborating over ambiguous topics where the potential to be misunderstood is high, you need to use the "richest" communication channel possible. Body language, facial expression
I would dispute that body language and facial expression are somehow always correctly interpreted or unambiguous, like most forms of communication.
Written word, or a series of characters in a string, as I think we in a technical forum with many programmers in particular can appreciate, can in fact remove quite a bit of ambiguity if everyone is careful about what they type.
Reminded me of this Key & Peele sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgYYOUC10aM