nanodeath

Including this one, 34 times :')

To add to the anecdata here, I had covid for a week (bedridden but otherwise not that bad), then had a single day in which I tested negative, and then it rebounded for a week, due to Paxlovid. Sounded like it was pretty common. So that was a waste of 15 days. On the plus side, my second week was much the same as the first week as far as symptoms go.

I was amused they don't commit to either "full-stack" or "fullstack" spellings :)

The HTML source is pretty good too. A doctype that's half HTML5, half XHTML. A pre-IE7 script tag thing. A meta-keywords tag. Lists that don't actually use any list tags. Raw PHP tags being dumped into the HTML output. No closing body or html tags. This joke has _layers_, man.

I _think_ what they're saying is a specialized/curried function that takes a single argument is better than the method it's replacing that takes three strings or whatever. That is, `foo.a("a").b("b").c("c")` is better than `foo.a("a", "b", "c")`. Which...sure, but 1. if you're really passing 2-3 parameters in with identical types, maybe use inline value classes instead? Or at least type aliases?, and 2. if you can't or don't want to do that, named arguments help.

Chrome desktop, too. Fun.

Isn't the first word of the article a link to the tool? Maybe it was added after your comment.

> If the value was in your L1 cache the difference in access time is 100 ns vs 1 ms which is an order of magnitude faster.

I see this mistake all the time, even in print! It's millis -> micros -> nanos, so...that's a lot more than a single order of magnitude.

Similarly I thought of Death Stranding :)

Though I guess exoskeletons are not uncommon in sci-fi.

IIRC one of Chrome's various selling points when it launched was that Flash was bundled in, so 1. you always had Flash and 2. the plugin was more likely to be properly compatible with the browser, and 3. because Chrome updated constantly, that means you got updated Flash, too. So they definitely were trying to address that glaring pain point you brought up.

Hm...it's unclear whether you read the stream. They had reason to believe that the C-hook would fail after 97-100 years, yet weren't even checking the C-hooks on towers that were 100 years old. That seems willfully negligent.

I can't tell if this is a troll comment. The article makes no mention of hydroxychloroquine.

Pretty sure there are places online where you can sell/exchange gift cards.