Those three are just the ones that will get you quickest interview scheduled. If you want to do something not listed it'll just take a little longer to find someone to interview you
Given what Lisp, Smalltalk, Mesa/Cedar, Oberon, Delphi, VB introduced as productivity tooling, I see as negative programming as if my computer was still stuck in 80x25 green phosphor terminal.
That's a silly caricature. I could retort "I see as a negative if my development environment takes 40GB of RAM and half an hour to boot up" and it would be on the same level.
Debuggers are great but they're not always practical, for instance for debugging remote targets with limited connectivity. Actually in some situations you may end up having to buy expensive licenses for closed source software to run a debugger on certain hardware (although that might not be a concern for Go).
I'm also of the opinion that firing the debugger as soon as something unexpected happens instead of taking 10 seconds to reason about your code might lead you to miss a more general problem with your architecture as you focus solely on the symptoms, but that's of course a lot more subjective and your experience may vary. Personally I generally tend to use debuggers as a last recourse when I really can't make sense of what's going on through "static" analysis.
also, if you write a ton of log statements because that's how you debug, then when your production system blows up and you can't fire up the debugger, you have something to work on.
I don't understand why it has to be an exclusive OR. Both printf-style logging and debuggers have their use. As I mentioned in my previous comment deploying some tracing solutions can be a complicated and expensive process, writing to an UART is however very cheap. Breaking or slowing down the execution of tasks interacting with other threads and resources can be impractical or simply hide the bug altogether if it's race-condition related, sometimes toggling a GPIO and putting an oscilloscope on the PIN beats any trace framework in terms of practicality. It will also work regardless of programing language, developing environment software and hardware used.
Saying that debuggers are for noobs and that they shouldn't be used is idiotic but arguing that not using them is doing it wrong and being stuck at the age of 80x25 terminals isn't much better. Wisdom is to use the right tool for the right job.
Chained method calls being difficult to debug does not necessarily mean using a debugger. It can mean difficult to insert clarifying code in the middle of the chain: print statements, or additional value checks, and so on.
It's still not as clear as just splitting across lines, plus in most tools you need to explicitly indicate you want to highlight word diffs.
But more abstractly speaking: are chained calls, from the POV of a human that didn't write it, or wrote it two months ago, more readable than a number of statements on multiple lines?
People loved it when Apple did it which gave everyone else the okay to go ahead and do it themselves. It allows phone manafacturers to advertise higher screen to body ratios and is really just a step in the progression towards bezelless phones. There's definitely a loud group of people who strongly dislike it but I think most people are okay with it
I hope not. The bezel has a very real purpose: a place to hold it without your fingers interfering with the screen, whether by activating a touch or just plain blocking the view. I have an older Android with ~5mm of bezel on all the sides and ~8mm of thickness, and trying to get a good grip while not activating or blocking the screen is hard enough. I remember being handed an iPhone 6, and trying not to drop it was the most difficult part. Holding something that thin is just not comfortable, as is trying to pick it up off a flat surface.
I use to agree, but I would except most devices to account for this. I'd except a virtual bezel or software controlled dead space around the edge of the phone.
You'd basically push buttons and the status bar into the bezel, then use the sides much like the Galaxy Edge does.
Just have to comment that for myself a notch would be a deal beaker for a new device. I've played with a couple devices and really think it adds no actual value while complicating the user interface. I will avoid it as long as I can.
In short there is a 4 notification icon limit now with the clock on the left, whether you have a notch or not. I often have a lot more than 4 notification icons up (esp since a couple are permanent from background apps) and the rest will just disappear under a dot-dot icon.
Wait. Everything has notch support, even if the device doesn't have a notch? That's odd, right? Given the notch is still an exception? Although they could make the status icons (top) tilt 90 degrees so they are usable from within landscape yet remain on their position
Because it is a trade off between the largest, consistent screen size, having a front camera, and a notch (that's how we call it, this is the first time I see the term cutoff).
I dislike the notch, but it isn't very annoying. You still got your status stuff on the top left and right. However, if I'd be having my device in landscape it'd thoroughly annoy me no matter what. It destroys the device symmetry!! However landscape is a niche for me; I don't watch many videos.
I do think your comment hits the nail though. Apple gets away with all kind of innovations: TouchBar, butterfly keyboard, no 3.5 mm...
The notch is in a separate category. It was definitely a natural necessary technical compromise. For ergonomic reasons, a phone can only be so large, but you also want the screen as large as possible. There is an argument to be made for getting rid of the headphone jack to increase the room available in the phone.
The butterfly keyboard was an unnecessary attempt at thinness. The laptop did not need to be thinner for ergonomic reasons.
The touchbsr generates a lot of nerd rage but most people don’t really care about the function keys.
It's true though. I just got a job at a FANG company right out of college and if I wanted my own 1 bedroom apartment it would look like a repurposed motel from the 50s.
I make over six figures but can't help but feel guilty when I have to tell my parents, who are below poverty line, that I can't afford my own apartment.
An article from the verge mentioned that people were moving away from texting and are instead using services like imessage and fb messenger that restricted carriers from controlling text messaging. Carriers could either change or they could watch their control of texting slip away. This option satisfies the desire of carriers to keep their control and google's desire to fix the messaging experience on Android
... and nary a mention of users. I do think this is Google's biggest weakness. They don't see the end-users of any of their products as their customers and they don't seem to have developed the corporate infrastructure to start doing that any time soon.
I don't see how you can say that. Section 230 was made to allow service providers to monitor content without becoming responsible for all the content that gets posted by users.
Let's say you run a small forum and someone starts harrassing users and creates a very toxic environment. 230 allows you to delete this person's comments/account without suddenly being liable for everything users post on your site.
Big companies will just have a team create an automatic filtering tool with strong rules to prevent lawsuits. The forum runner doesn't have the money or resources for that. Maybe startups would pop up and sell filtering services but Joe Smith who was just trying to host a community gardening forum isn't going to want to/be able to pay for that. Either he pays, let's trolls run wild, or brings down the site. It's a lose-lose scenario.
Suggesting that US law makes a company legally culpable for all interaction with that company's website has no basis in our legal system. That isn't how our law has ever worked. The first and foremost thing to understand about law is that intent is as important as the actual act itself.
So, no, there is no way removing the blank check we cut big tech is going to hurt small startups or a community forum. And most of those are going to have human moderators that do a much better job than those "automatic filtering tools" you seem to suggest are a solution.
The whole point here is that automatic filtering doesn't work. We've seen YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter prove that. Of course, Google has hundreds of billions of dollars at it's disposal, but it isn't hiring human moderators, because it has no reason to: Our government holds that Google isn't responsible for anything on it's platform, so it is better off keeping the money as profit.
Now, where it starts to get interesting is perverse incentives: Much of advertising profits comes from malware and scams. Ad companies make billions off this illegal, criminal behavior. And since we've granted them platform immunity, because it's "user content", they're free to keep making that money. They have no reason to take down illegal content, they can't be held responsible for cash cow scams like the fake rehab center fiasco that make them millions. (Source: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/7/16257412/rehabs-near-me-go...) Even if they get pressured to shut them down, they get to keep all of the profits.
Section 230 protects companies which knowingly (and this is key, intent is important) do not remove illegal and criminal conduct because it is profitable, and they can't be held responsible for it. Section 230 does not protect small businesses, and the marketing to protect it relies on fundamental misconceptions about basic legal responsibility. Companies without intent to profit off criminal conduct are protected by the basic concepts of our legal system: That you can't commit a crime without intent.
It's amazing how the organizations promoting how critical Section 230 is to "small businesses" are funded by the five largest companies in the US by market cap. (The Center for Democracy & Technology spoke out against SESTA-FOSTA in some articles today, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are all top tier sponsors.)
> Suggesting that US law makes a company legally culpable for all interaction with that company's website has no basis in our legal system. That isn't how our law has ever worked.
As far as I can tell (and I am not a lawyer) you are wrong about this and there is case law to prove it. As wikipedia says:
"The act was passed in part in reaction to the 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.,[3] which suggested that service providers who assumed an editorial role with regard to customer content, thus became publishers, and legally responsible for libel and other torts committed by customers. This act was passed to specifically enhance service providers' ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without themselves becoming publishers. In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., the Court notes that "Congress enacted § 230 to remove the disincentives to self-regulation created by the Stratton Oakmont decision."
And here is the link to the court decision being referenced:
> Any small site taking reasonable measures to manage their site would be fine.
The case law indicates the opposite. Without 230, small sites would have to take NO MEASURE to manage other peoples content on their site. As soon as they took any "reasonable measures" to restrict that content they would assume the role of publisher and become liable.
