fitpolar

U.S. journalists don’t have the courage to do journalism anymore. They wouldn’t dare go against the grain, let alone be specific on corruption.

Mexican journalists should migrate, and report on both U.S. and Mexican government corruption without the threat of overt assassination.

Roku, and their strange world of SceneGraph and BrightScript!

It's actually quite similar to React meets Ruby or something, but without the nested dependency breakages you get with node in React. Anyway, client wanted so client gets.

So what, is that not everyone loves it. Devs shouldn’t be forced to use a language that they hate using.

Thankfully WASM is a remedy for this, and over the next decade devs will be able to build full stack across web and mobile in Swift or any other language they prefer.

> HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Go or PHP, Redis, MySQL or Postgres, Ubuntu & Nginx.

Listing a stack of dependencies as a starting requirement is arguably not simple.

Simple to you personally because you’re proficient in each of these. But how long did it take for you to become proficient?

I’d love it if there was the equivalent for this, but for politics.

> What was holding me off throughout the years was, I wasn't interested in learning C++ or Java to make them. I wanted to build Desktop apps with Javascript

This isn’t the first time I’ve come across this aversion to learning something new from JS devs. Most other devs I’ve worked with love learning new languages.

Could someone please help me understand why javascript devs seem to have a thing against other languages.

> My Mac got a kernel panic yesterday. My response is not to swear off Apple products forever.

Yet your response is to downvote everything you disagree with?

Not swearing off Apple products forever is your personal choice. Personally I agree with that. But I know plenty of people who DO choose to swear off Apple products when something doesn't work. That's also their choice, and I don't have a problem with that.

I don't know why this would get downvoted. Seems reasonable, whether it's Snopes or anyone.

Similar to Apple claiming "it just works", you better make sure it works. Or Google proclaiming "don't be evil". Etc.

Is that your interpretation? Mine is the opposite: "At this point nothing is trustworthy".

Just saying that humans have an extremely poor track record at compromising information for political gain. Anything would be better at this point, you can't get any worse.

At this point nothing is trustworthy. But I have more faith that AI is going to do a better job in future than humans ever have. We may be 100 years away from that though, or 1000 years. Who knows?

It's a hopeless quest until AI reaches a certain level of objective interpretation.

Regarding humans, most people who are capable of researching truth without any bias, don't have a voice. Human history is riddled with partisan extremists presenting biased information as neutral and factual. Snopes is no exception.

With that mindset nobody should use that word. We should wipe it from the dictionary.