|
i did not realize that gmail defaulted to showing recipients of your emails your google+ profile photo. guess the whole house of cards about how super hawt i am has been shattered for a few of you, lol. u still hire uggos, right?
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
classic google
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
i cant even find a setting to turn it off. shitttttt edit: found it lol. apparently its on a new version of the settings page and my account still has the old settings page or something? found a url by google searching to type in to get to the right setting and turn it off. but you can't turn it all the way off. the options are "everyone" and "people i can chat with". isn't everyone with a gmail someone i can chat with?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:you can do that in c# too, but in javascript's case i'm not seeing any distinctions between array and object at all really. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/prototype https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/prototype
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:i cant even find a setting to turn it off. shitttttt i think you have to consent to chat with people (or maybe that is also a setting???)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Corla Plankun posted:i think you have to consent to chat with people (or maybe that is also a setting???) either way, the setting is dumb, hiding it is dumb, and having no "turned off" option is dummmmmmmbbbb
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
privacy is good, but then again: google.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
I replaced mine with a picture of the dassault rafale because I'm an uggo and that plane is sexy [AMA] about my dual stand-off runway cratering submunition missiles
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
google is bad i'd forgotten g+ even existed
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
my google+ profile photo is a generic blue dude icon on a light blue background because the only reason i even have a google+ profile is because youtube wouldn't loving shut up about some years ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
oh, looks like i've had the profile for 4 years. i have even made a public post: "lol if you think i'm using this for any other reason than google forcing it on me"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
but how else would you engage with Linus' brand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:I use random 64-bit ints for PKs. Well, 63-bit really, because negative integer PKs are icky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:in case anyone reads this and mistakes it for not a joke please don't ever do this i get all my crytographic advice from random people on the internet
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:i did not realize that gmail defaulted to showing recipients of your emails your google+ profile photo. guess the whole house of cards about how super hawt i am has been shattered for a few of you, lol. u still hire uggos, right? Uggos yes, goog+ users no
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
MALE SHOEGAZE posted:i get all my crytographic advice from random people on the internet Good. Make sure to roll your own crypto, too! No one will be able to break it if you're the only one that knows how it works!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
ive seen people use 32 bit hashes for identity thinking collisions are a negligible issue without understanding the birthday problem so anything is possible
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
other reasons not to use auto-id that have literally happened to me: other bad people will hard-code ids of specific values to have special semantic meaning in the application (e.g. id 1 is special) instead of encoding this semantic meaning in an obvious way in the schema other bad people will hard-code assumptions that the next id must always increment by 1 (this is objectively false) i have regretted using auto-ids
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
just use natural keys unless you have a really good reason not to
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:other reasons not to use auto-id that have literally happened to me: I also dislike when people think that "ORDER BY id DESC" is equivalent to "ORDER BY CREATED DESC". I mean, 90% of the time that works, but you shouldn't count on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
the talent deficit posted:just use natural keys unless you have a really good reason not to What do you mean by "natural keys"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
the talent deficit posted:just use natural keys unless you have a really good reason not to uhh no well i mean, yes, I guess, it's just "natural keys are loving horrible" is the really good reason not to
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
lollin' @ the necessity of using createDelegate to bind an object's function to a different object without losing access to the original object's scope. i understand why its that way, but holy hell is that counterintuitive to how an object's functions work in any other language.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
unless the latest versions of javascript changed it, there is no "object scope" in javascript, only function and global scopes
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:unless the latest versions of javascript changed it, there is no "object scope" in javascript, only function and global scopes there's block scoping now, but i'd be surprised if lmo was using es2015.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
a friend of mine is doing a programming bootcamp right now, using javascript. trying to answer their questions is really making me appreciate how wacky javascript is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
jony neuemonic posted:there's block scoping now, but i'd be surprised if lmo was using es2015. fortunately you can transpile modern javascript to so it works on everything newer than ie8. if you have to maintain an old codebase, welp,
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
oh, yeah. i meant that more in the "i'm gonna be surprised if epic has adopted a front-end build process" sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
So they're making me work on frontend poo poo and so I said fuckit and am trying to do typescript. jfc what have I done I want to use Handlebars but how in the hell do I access Handlebars "stuff" in my ts class?? The d.ts files seem to be useless (even when added as a <reference>)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:I replaced mine with a picture of the dassault rafale because I'm an uggo and that plane is sexy i use a picture of my dog because he's much more photogenic
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Finster Dexter posted:So they're making me work on frontend poo poo and so I said fuckit and am trying to do typescript. typescript is great in theory but i hit these kind of issues every time i try to use it. just use es2015 and comment your stuff well, imo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
jony neuemonic posted:typescript is great in theory but i hit these kind of issues every time i try to use it. Yeah, I don't have time to sit here and troubleshoot issues with a drat import statement. Oh looks like my language level is ts 1.4. what is this mess, ok I'm done back to pjavascript for now
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
lame, i was looking forward to try and get our poo poo in typescript. jokes on me for expecting any of the random "javascipt but better" things out there to not be garbage. HoboMan fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
typescript is fantastic actually
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:2^-63 is a very small probability. You're going to have far more network errors than bounced requests due to random PK collisions unless your data store is truly gigantic. just gonna quote these famous last words for posterity lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Gul Banana posted:typescript is fantastic actually yeah, i don't want to take away from typescript at all because it's genuinely really good. i've always experienced just enough friction using it with third party libraries to make it not feel worth the hassle though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
if your third party library doesn't provide .d.ts files then it's probably scrub tier poo poo that you should avoid anyway hth
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
to be clear i'm talking about scenarios where we use like.. one or two libraries and then a shitload of internally-developed code. it's great for building the kind of large systems that raw javascript is just atrocious for i do not really like import/export, but that's javascript's fault also. imo when possible stick with namespaces (the former "internal modules") instead
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
hackbunny posted:unless the latest versions of javascript changed it, there is no "object scope" in javascript, only function and global scopes i know, which is why i said i understand why it is like that. its just extremely counterintuitive that MyObject.Fart doesn't have any access to MyObject's properties if it's called by being bound to, say, a button's click handler. it's totally correct behavior in the context of javascript, but it's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
my boss sold a customer an old worn-out tower we had lying in storage for years and listed it on the invoice as "hp5800 desktop computer; FREE beige colour customisation"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 19:39
|
|
