byte1918

I've had pretty much the same experience as you. Honestly, linux runs faster uses less resources and is infinitely customizable. If anyone's work allows them to make the switch (eg. No hard dependencies on windows) then consider doing it, it is absolutely worth it.

You are correct and it's equally as awful.

I wish browsers would stick to being browsers. 'Brave Today' could easily be a website, PWA or a plugin that I can happily ignore.

Apologies if this seems snarky but it would be far more useful if you could explain your point rather than a generic condescending "[you] haven't delved into Tailwind on a non-trivial project".

It's the case with most UNIX CLI tools and if the author's complaints are true, do we then have to change all UNIX CLI tools? Maybe? The reality is we can't and probably don't need to.

> Customers were offered unlimited backup and storage of the photos they took. Customers used said service with that expectation

'unlimited backup and storage of the photos' was the market pitch, whether people read the TOS is another thing. I can see why some people would feel unhappy with this and I can't blame anyone for that but on the other hand I wish we would stop taking these vague market statements at face value. 'free', 'unlimited' and 'forever' can never go together in a capitalist market. And I'll abruptly stop here because I would derail into things like law and ethics which, I think, are out of my scope.

> while competitors to it went out of business

This is honestly a tragedy that happens all across the industry at the moment.

> I think offering something for free and unlimited for 10 years and suddenly charging for it seems like bait and switch.

Wouldn't it be 'bait and switch' if they did that after less time, say 1 year? 10 years is more than reasonable. And if you disagree, that's fine, but I'm curious to hear what number of years would you consider reasonable then? I'm not excited about the news either but I think it's _fair_.

How would one view these routes (now)? Or would one have to sign-up and then wait to be contacted by SlowWays?

"All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection" - David Wheeler

I agree with you for most part. Mixing unit tests with integration tests is a recipe for failure.

A clean history with proper commit names can work as a change log for you app. We actually did that and it worked quite well. In Azure DevOps the release pipelines have access to the list of commits since the previous release so one only has to simply take the titles of those commits to build it.

> useEffect(() => {

> fetchData();

> updateBreadcrumbs();

> }, [location.pathname]);

> There are two use cases, the "data-fetching" and "displaying breadcrumbs". Both are updated with an useEffect hook. This single useEffect hooks will run when the fetchData and updateBreadcrumbs functions or the location changes.

Is this right? Wouldn't they only update when `location.pathname` changes? Also, there should be a whole discussion on `useCallback` which is not used here and it can be quite important, plus linters would complain of missing dependencies for the useEffect.

I'm sure it did not or maybe it was not enabled by default. I distinctly remember having to turn 'condensed view' back on because the thumbnails were taking so much vertical space.

edit: Just noticed who I replied to. I guess you would know better.