trgv

edit - I'm removing this comment because I offended someone.

The reason your posts in this thread are so irritating is because TS has all the same junk people hate about JS. You say things like JS is "deeply problematic" and "full of pot holes and weirdness" but you don't address how TS has fixed any of these problems. (Hint: it hasn't. Fixing the language is totally beyond the scope of TS).

Typescript provides concrete benefits. Maybe it also provide some benefits that aren't so concrete, like encouraging developers to think about how they're representing data earlier rather than later. But it doesn't "fix the language".

If your .ts code differs massively from your .js code you have no one to blame but yourself.

React is not "batteries included". Angular is.

This isn't a weakness in React. I prefer react's approach. But it does mean the developer needs to make more decisions.

Angular comes with stuff like RxJS and a wrapper around XmlHttpRequest. React doesn't. Again, this isn't "correct," it's just a different approach. No one is being combative here (except you), just descriptive.

> Dogs got closer to humans thousands of years ago. Their role was to protect. In the process, they became less intelligent than their ancestors: The wolf.

I don't think it's fair to say wolves are smarter than dogs. They specialize at different things, that's for sure.

In general I disagree with your post.

If you imagine a dog living in a stone age village versus a dog living in a town today, it doesn't seem to follow that the latter is going to be smarter because human technology is more advanced. A stone age dog might recognize a knock on the hut of a door and the modern dog might recognize an alarm going off. Seems like the same thing to me.

If you want smart dogs the answer is eugenics. Breed the smartest ones. This is tried and true and it's how breeds like border collies or german shepherds got so smart: they were bred for obedience, intelligence, and ability to perform their jobs. More pets and fewer working dogs (which is definitely the trend) is going to result in friendlier, cuter, but less intelligent dogs (compared to working breeds anyway).

Whether a show, book, movie, song, etc is "worth the time" is entirely subjective. There are million dollar franchises based on material that I don't consider worth my time. But you better believe that stuff is worth Netflix's time.

A perfect example of this is "Bright," a netflix movie that was critically panned. But people watched it. And now they're making "Bright 2". Are you really suggesting that Netflix should stop making movies that people want to see because critics (professional or otherwise) dislike them?

Two things people need to keep mind:

a). There's no objective way to judge this stuff.

b). The existence of movies like "Bright" does not prevent "high quality films" from being made.

Werner Herzog, Kelly Reichardt, Wong Kar Wai, Michael Haneke, Mia Hanson-Love, etc can keep making movies whether or not "Bright" keeps getting made over and over again. Both kinds of movies have their audience, and that's fine.

I don't think anyone in this comment chain is saying "we don't want women building stuff". Rather, some commenters are uncomfortable with the assumption that moving from 15 males to 11 males + 5 females is necessarily an improvement.

Maybe 5 of the original 15 males were gay. Does that change your perspective? I find this whole way of thinking unsettling. Doesn't it simply depend on who these people are as individuals?

I'd also be careful with the argument you've (implicitly) made. It doesn't seem to follow that the distribution of gender of programmers should match the distribution of gender of users. Besides, there must be software projects where 95%+ of users are male or female.

In general, I think most of us here agree that gender discrimination is bad, people being discouraged from making career choices due to gender is bad, and sexual harassment is bad. We may disagree on the frequency with which these things occur or how to fix them, but I think we're a lot closer than it appears from these contentious comments.

I really enjoyed the interview as well. Borges' manner of speaking is wonderful.

> Borges says he's not a thinker in the interview. But I dunno, even if his influences are clear, his ability to understand, and then convey these ideas in such a way as to make them self-evident is in some ways the greater act of philosophy than the raw conception of the ideas.

I disagree here. Borges is a storyteller: he's interested in provoking a response from his readers. He's not arguing for or against a philosophy, but rather he finds inspiration in the philosophical writings of people who are arguing one way or another (ie philosophers).

What he's doing is no more or less impressive than what they're doing, but the two things very different. I think he's absolutely right to point that out to the interviewers.

It's written for a general American audience so it makes sense to use those units.

> Zuckerberg and FBI director Comey do as well. Seems common sense these days. Which is really, really sad.

Both of these people are public figures. You can argue that it's common sense if you're a public figure. If not, "common sense" seems like an exaggeration.

Whenever you're shooting up a human with something you need to be careful about what you're shooting them up with.

That doesn't say anything about vaccines.

That seems like a strange reason to love a movie.

I liked the visuals, but I think the script was a disaster, and the movie itself was only middling.