JackuB

Waratek https://waratek.com | Principal Java Engineer | Hybrid in Dublin or Remote in Europe

We are working on a specialised Cybersecurity Runtime Application Self-Protection (RASP) tooling.

We are seeking an exceptional programmer with expertise in Java, someone who will thrive in exploring the JDK ecosystem further. You will join a team developing the core technology behind our Java Agents, working on cutting-edge solutions to enhance security.

Feel free to reach out with questions or applications! My email is in my HN profile.

https://waratek.com/career/principal-java-engineer/

If you fancy more BDD-style testing with a Gherkin-like syntax, there is also Shellspec https://shellspec.info / https://github.com/shellspec/shellspec

This was exactly the reason I’ve abandoned them. As mentioned in other comments, they look like a good way to create a design/component system in them, because of the interop with any frontend JS framework (who doesn’t want that?!). So you deal with clunky CSS sharing and theming capabilities and there might be some solutions on the horizon. But now you want to build a static website with it (landing page, docs, blog…) and you can’t pre-render them, because there is no declarative Shadow DOM element https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/blob/gh-pages/proposals... (rejected https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/510). Yeah, you can pre-render them without the Shadow DOM. Then if you want to make those chunks of HTML into WCT on load (sort of rehydration), it will trigger repaints, as you have to remove the chunk of HTML, put it into WCT and parse everything again. Or you don’t put it into Shadow Root, to prevent repaint - but at that point, if your components can work this way, why even use WCT?

So I went in an read the actual ruling document https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Bi... (only 8 pages) and it pretty much made sense for me (IANAL ofc).

McD’s lawyers screwed up, not submitting required evidence of actual use in years 2011-2016. They printed out webpages with promo materials and a wikipedia page (as article correctly points, “duh, we are McDonalds”) - not a great proof of anything for any court. Then submitted some packaging of the product.

Not any evidence that the product was actually sold and trademark used in those five years - no sales figures, website traffic stats… As said, makes sense to me

Edit: that said, still makes no sense why were they challenging the use of Big Mac in the first place… shrugs