Fal @ Fal @yiffit.net

Posts

2

Comments

669

Joined

2 yr. ago

every user of the type must explicitly either use it or explicitly declare that it won’t

What? How does someone declare that they won't use a type? What does that even mean?

Do you have an example use case that you're trying to solve? What additional type are you adding that would break existing users usage? If that's the case, maybe use an entirely different type, or change the class name or something

What language are you writing that you didn't even think of this?

My retort is that "it's publicly owned so it's fine if anyone destroys it" is a stupid argument no matter who makes it

So there was no victims ofJanuary 6th either because the capital building is publicly owned too?

This. Saying the wrong word in the moment is not a great look, but it certainly doesn't imply an actual cognitive issue

You can sell it. As long as you didn't make it with the intention to sell it

Because it's completely irrelevant

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/cd59217a-fe1d-468f-8f2d-4cfb4671e49b

Umm, what?

Using a distro that isn't a rolling release for a desktop is absolutely stupid

Or the fancier "elmos"

Or smart whiteboard things or actual TVs

Sitting on a chair that you can't put your feet on the ground is extremely uncomfortable. Even if they have a bar to put them on at the base, it's still a very awkward position

I see you missed the point entirely. Typical

Archive.is doesn't work in Firefox. It never lets me past the captcha

None of these are a problem to experienced Java developers however

You're kidding, right?

Rust is way easier to read than java in many cases. Terrible argument.

Imagine choosing to write something in java versus rust. Amazing

I don't. Good thing rights aren't based on a personal need

Terrible take. Could be used to justify banning literally all guns except flintlock pistols. You can accomplish the same thing as a bump stock with a piece of string. This is what leads to this nonsense