nuclear_eclipse

We have multiple CPython core developers at Facebook, and the Cinder team (among others) are heavily involved in discussions around CPython's direction. There are many pieces of Cinder that would never get accepted upstream, or would take a decade of PEPs and incremental improvements to get there. Cinder is both a proof of concept that these ideas can work in CPython, and something that we can use today, rather than waiting a decade to realize these benefits from a pure open source perspective.

Cinder is a fork of CPython, and maintains compatibility with C extensions written for CPython. Which includes a lot of important/popular third-party packages these days.

The big benefit of type hints things like Pydantic (and some things I've written myself) is that it can provide useful runtime information. If you know that property `obj.foo` is hinted with `List[Foo]`, then that allows you to do something expecting to have a list of `Foo` objects. This is really extraordinary for deserializing untyped data (like a json blob) into appropriate objects at runtime. You can take something like `{"foo": [...]}` and attempt to deserialize each element of the `foo` list into `Foo` objects, rather than just guessing at what the list contains. If you stop being able to understand type hints at runtime, then the only thing they're good for is documentation and static analysis.

I've been on Dvorak full-time since 2008, and even though I generally don't use vim itself for programming, I do still use vim-mode in my editors and IDE. But I gave up on using hjkl long before switching to Dvorak, and I've always just either used motions like w/b/f/t/n/etc, or moved to the arrow keys for shorter motions. This also lets me share more of the muscle memory for movements when I'm typing into standard text boxes like this.

If someone signs a bad contract because they refuse to read and understand it, and just signs it anyways, they're still generally bound by the terms of the contract. iOS and Android both have pretty clear descriptions in their permissions dialog of what the app is asking for.

Presenting a screen/dialog to the user at first login asking for permission to access contact data does not sound like "forcefully harvested". Users rarely understand the consequences of their decision, which is why I would love to see iOS and Android eliminate the option of wholesale contact access, but use of Facebook apps is not predicated upon receiving your contact data.

Your friends can (and almost certainly will) share their contact info (including your name/phone/email) with Facebook , Messenger, or Whatsapp, even if your account is deleted and doesn't exist.

Assuming that the data is just your phone number and name/email, is it not possible that this is just from friends who have allowed Facebook and/or Messenger to share contact info? Your original account data almost certainly would have been deleted/purged due to various regulatory requirements, but that doesn't necessarily stop your contact info from being shared again and making its way back into the system.

Sanitize, normalize, and distrust. All three cover different use cases.

It's legal negotiation. You sue for the maximum allowable penalty/damages in hopes of settling for something in between the maximum and zero.

I've been a lifelong fan of Calvin & Hobbes, and I have all of the books, but I both don't have the time to revisit them, or when I do, I binge way too much.

Is there any way to get a personal, daily comic via RSS or similar that starts from the very beginning, without having to wait for one of the syndication sites like gocomics to wrap around back to the beginning?

Just wait until you get Python 3.9 and can do:

    >>> a, b = 2, 4
    >>> f"{math.gcd(a, b) = }"
    'math.gcd(a, b) = 2'

I presume they would claim them with fake/fresh username/email info to get legitimate licenses/keys, then resell those after the fact.

resell them on various sites for < MSRP