Does this seem like a natural way of speaking: "I am grated when ever it is twelve of the clock and I can not fall on sleep."? If you want an example lesson in language drift, go to Rome and try and talk to people in Latin.
"Wanna" is called a "contraction" or "slang", probably originating from "want to" and "want a" both pronounced like "want'ta". (For example, I am from Sacramento, which is often pronounced as "Sacra-minnow". Also see "shoulda woulda coulda".) Quite common in Northern California at least. Its probably best described as Internet English. The real question is: Does it make it harder to understand? Does it obstruct the goal of communicating information? Or do you normally speak like a 17th Century aristocrat, using archaic words that very few understand, but are probably technically on point? (Sorry, that are veritably apposite.)
Not if you're trying to write in a conversational tone, which is common for many blog post.
'Wanna' has a particular confrontational connotation (possibly a joking one) that I believe was desired here. 'Want to' wouldn't have had the same effect.
That's all well and good. But such a statement begs the question: Is the inverse true? Is using slang like 'wanna' bad? And does it obstruct the goal of communicating information, etc.? Does using technically correct, but archaic, words obstruct communication, and does that make their usage bad?
I ask because I would like to explore the reasoning behind the conclusion that such words are bad. If they are bad because they hinder effective communication, then so are words that are uncommonly known, I argue. Which seems to pose the argument that we should best speak like simpletons because simpletons, or people that are too pedantic, may not understand the meaning.
As I mention in a previous comment, if you are using the TOR hidden service (3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion/) the redirect goes over a TOR exit node without https. Ideally it should use the hidden service so no exit node is involved, or at the least use HTTPS.
One thing that would be nice to fix in the new interface:
If I use the DDG TOR hidden service, 3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion, do a search and click on a search result the link goes via a DDG redirect from r.duckduckgo.com. This should be using the hidden service domain, not the duckduckgo.com domain. As it is the redirect goes over a tor exit node rather than directly via the hidden service.
We aim to make it an explicit goal, rather than implicit. Wherein other projects this is a "would be nice", in this project it's an absolute necessity for the project's security and therefore success.
You can have multiple different versions of packages installed and other packages can depend on the different versions. The management of the 'shared library hell' is done behind the scenes using symbolic links in a GNU Stow like manner.
You can create 'environments' that are collections of installed packages and switch between them so tools needed for one task don't pollute the namespace for other tasks. For example, I create an environment for working on Firefox. It uses specific GCC versions and libraries. Only that environment sees them. I then switch to another environment when working on another project which uses clang - that environment can't see the library versions from the firefox environment, etc.
You can build package from source or download from a binary cache. You can modify configure flags and other build settings and the correct packages will rebuild - or download from cache if they are built with the same flags.
This itself works, but then you're probably still using channels for nix-env (user profiles). These need to be configured separately. Or maybe with NIX_PATH, I don't know since I don't use the user profiles feature.
After that, you just work with it like any git repo (presumably you, like git pull --rebase, git rebase -i...).
I wouldn't describe JavaScript's OOP as bolted on. It's just a different kind of OOP - prototype based rather than class based. You could argue that Lua is more "bolted on OOP" since there are quite a few different libraries that build OOP for it.
That would be a silly argument. Lua's metatables are strictly more expressive than js's prototypes, and few libraries assume the presence of any sort of OO.
As long as you hold the private keys yourself and don't keep them on third party websites your holdings are safe. Safer than cash since you can encrypt and back up the keys.
Exchanges usually charge a withdrawal fee to cover transaction fees. BTC-e also charge a fee for example. Bitcoin software doesn't provide (an easy if possible at all) means to compute the fee up front to pass on to the receiver. So exchanges charge a fee that to cover the average cost per transaction.
