rolfvandekrol

There is a 'hallucinations' section on the page, which suggests that the items above that section are not hallucinated. I highly doubt that.

I am, as far a I know the only person in the world with my name. So I searched for my name. I am none of many things this tool tells me I am, for example a right wing politician, a journalist,l and a researcher on solar fuels.

From the story told in the README it is clear this is a project ran by a single person. There is no wider maintenance team that can be trusted with continuing the project. So anyone who offers to take up the maintenance will be unknown to the current maintainer and cannot automatically be trusted.

The alternative to this seemingly bitter approach is handing over the trust they built to some unknown person who can do whatever they want with the data in a lot of PostgreSQL databases around the world. I think I prefer the bitterness here over blind trust.

Pixel 8a is fairly similar in size. Headphone jacks in phones are (sadly) gone forever i'm afraid.

Exactly. The author shows a few examples of commercial endeavors open source projects could pursue, and acknowledge the projects in question were already doing that. Yet somehow they don't arrive at the conclusion that those commercial offerings simply don't pay enough to be able to build and support their products.

For me the images work in Firefox, but don't in Chrome. Looks like an issue with https, but i'm not sure how and why.

Nice!

Sometimes it generates ambiguous situations, where two solutions are both equally valid.

For example

equation: 5 - _ = _ available numbers: 3 and 2

If I understand correctly, you need to submit the verifiable identifiers (email address and optional salt) to the party where you need to verify. That means you need to trust said party to not abuse this information to verify your domain with other services which use the same verification method.

The beauty of verifying with a changing bit of information (which is basically what is happining now) is that you only prove ownership once and the proof can't be stolen by someone who doesn't own the domain but received your proof.

Maybe I didn't understand correctly how it works. But if I understand it correctly that is actually rather dangerous. Supplying the proof to an untrustworthy party should not allow them to re-use this proof for other services.

Definitely not a bug. There is a piece of code in source that looks like this:

  function rotateLine(position) {
    if (position < halfabet) {
      context.rotate((-90 \* Math.PI) / 180);
    } else if (position > halfabet) {
      context.rotate((90 \* Math.PI) / 180);
    } else if (position === halfabet) {
      context.rotate((180 \* Math.PI) / 180);
    }
  }

It indeed ensures one a type level that this series of functions can work as a series so every subsequent function can accept the return type of the previous one.

The latest version seems to have abandoned the typing of the initial input, which makes the types a little simpler.

My point however is that the types you point our here are actually not particularly complex. They are just long, with lot's of inputs for the generics (and the syntax may be confusing). The types in the original article are much more complicated, with conditional type inference etc.

compose is a higher order function. In the first step it accepts a function that converts 3 values (V1 to V3) into a single values (T1) and a series of conversion functions that converts this single value into another value (T1 into T2, T2 into T3 and so on until T6). Using these functions it produces a new function that converts the combination of V1, V2 and V3 into a T6.

I don't know ramda, but I assume this is only part of the type definition of compose and this is just the longest part of it. I think compose is written in such a way that it can accept a many conversion functions as you want and this is just the longest variant that is encoded in the types.

The trailing slash seems to be a typing error.

It looks like the author is talking about command line tools that use env vars for things that should be arguments. In the comments on the page he admits that for example key credentials are valid usages for env vars.