I love the look of the final product after the manual work (not the one for comparison). Just something very realistic and wholesome about it, not pumped to 10 via AI or Instagram filters.
Mock is effective when developers keep applications at 4-5 layers deep (and honestly, you don't need more than that 97% of the time: initiators, controllers, services, transports, and cross cutting concerns).
The problem is, engineers love to solve problems, and the funnest types of problems are hypothetical ones!
Yep, I was guiltily of taking DI and writing a spider web of code. It's not the tools fault, it was my attitude. I _wanted_ something hard to work on, so I created something hard to work on. Nowadays, my team and I work on a 4-5 layer deep limit and our code base is tight, consistent, and has near 99% test coverage naturally. We use mock testing for testing the single class, and of course integration test for testing requirements. Not everyone will do it this way, and that's fine, but the most important thing is actually just creating a plan and sticking to it so as to be consistent.
In the end, don't blame the tool, when you (or your coworkers) simply lack discipline.
Which country doesn’t tax their companies or people? Whether it be tariffs, income taxes, sales taxes, VAT, property taxes, minerals taxes, etc., all countries tax.
Taxes are a necessary evil for society and order. The USA tried to have zero ability to tax the states/people and that only lasted about 10 years before that national government failed and they tried another constitution with more national government powers.
You aren’t arguing “against taxes”, you just have a different opinion on the taxation regime and the coefficients. The sooner you recognize that, the faster your discussions with other humans might actually yield productive results.
(which is why many of EU's rich are domiciled there, which also means they're not counted in the EU's GINI coefficient. Almost no US citizens do the same, because of how the tax system works)
Hard to take you seriously unless the EU rich domiciled there, stayed there permanently, and didn't get the benefits of their home EU countries, benefits that come from taxes they do not pay into.
Wait, what? This is about company executives and high-paid consultants who essentially stayed in Dubai just enough to be tax-domiciled there. Or even just their companies with just a mailbox at a lawyer office in Dubai.
No, the EU rich very much physically stayed inside the EU, fully enjoying the benefits of those countries without paying tax.
Doesn't work for US citizens because global income is taxed in the US.
Apart from the market (obviously), the companies also enjoy infrastructure, resources (mostly finite) and they also produce byproducts that the society has to deal with (pollution, addiction of population etc).
So who pays for these? What you are suggesting is government subsidies of companies. This sounds like communism to me.
It didn't. Or rather it did, but not for the obvious reasons.
Taxes are not required for spending. Spending isn't required for spending, because ultimately government money is a proxy for power differentials and collective strategy.
Money defines which behaviours and which demographics are rewarded, and which are starved and punished. There are numbers and flow dynamics, but it's primarily a social credit system, not a substance.
Taxes are really a way to control the relative power of some groups over others - a form of regulation.
So when you have events like the New Deal and high taxes on the super rich, that means the economy is tuned towards diminishing power differentials, expanding infrastructure, and access to opportunity.
Low taxes on the super rich means expanding power differentials, more rigid hierarchy, diminishing collective infrastructure, and decreasing access to opportunity.
Likewise with provision of public services. If healthcare is cheap, guaranteed, and widely distributed, that increases individual agency and diminishes hierarchy.
If it's expensive and rationed by/for corporate monopolies, it increases hierarchy and diminishes agency.
Agree, If you're caught running with a bag from a plane (as we've seen on video): zero eligibility for "survivor benefits", $50,000 fine for endangerment, plus 100% liability for any injuries of those behind you.
You have something like 45s-90s to get off an airplane and sprint for your life, I've heard. (If anyone has a source, post it). Keep your phone, passport, and your keys in your pockets, and your shoes on your feet during taxi, takeoff, landing. Do not wear flip flops on airlines (you can't run in them) and they provide zero fire protection if you have to run across flaming ground. Everything is replaceable.
I hope it never comes to it, but I would absolutely "move" a person towards the exit, if needed, if they stopped to get their bag, only to save the lives of everyone else.
As others have mentioned, Crystal is close to Ruby in many ways, such that some simpler code will port straight over. I've managed to port a large Ruby application (the sup email client) to Crystal, and a lot of the code just worked, but I still had tweak just about everything else to get it to compile. The hardest bits were the places that used Ruby's dynamic nature, e.g., constructing method names at runtime and then calling them with send, or creating methods on the fly, or data structures that mixed up types freely.
Crystal's intent, as I see it, is very different from Ruby's. Because it compiles down to machine code in a single executable, it's good for making things that are fast and easy to deploy. I've used it to make small web services as well as the bigger thing I mentioned above.
It's different, but close enough to not matter a lot of the time. As in, some constructs are not allowed but they're extremely rare in practice and have simple workarounds, even if you don't preserve the exact same usage syntax.
So, you extremely rarely can run Ruby code in Crystal. But simple scripts are trivial to annotate. Larger apps won't require huge changes, but you're likely to run into dependencies you also need to port.
Yes, Crystal is not a superset of Ruby with all of its behaviors and semantics. And thus, it is great if you are starting fresh and don't mind foregoing the Ruby gem ecosystem and the popular frameworks like Rails proper.
But it's not a migration path for Ruby codebases to add types, like the new initiatives for type annotations are. It's just that the syntax used by the available options has been somewhere between bad and downright terrifying until now.
Semantics are quite different, but the stdlib APIs are similar enough that it really feels rubylike, unless you want to use some of that dynamism in ruby. The code ends up looking a lot more similar than c++ compared to JavaScript.
> An Arizona man was sentenced Friday to 15 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $452 million in restitution for conspiring to defraud Medicare and other federal health care benefit programs of more than $1 billion by operating a platform that generated false doctors’ orders used to support fraudulent claims for various medical items.
I wish all headlines read like this instead of "here's why you should be scared"
> Because what this AI-generated SEO slop formed from an extremely vulnerable and honest place shows is that women’s pain is still not taken seriously.
Incredibly sorry this happened to you. Unfortunately, Silicon Valley could not care less. Consent is not a concept they understand.
reply