FLGMwt

oops, sorry, I double posted this from an edited draft, please see my other comment for more helpful links to actual iNat behavior on this.

hey, iNat eng here, just want to chime in that this is all great feedback!

here's [1] some extra info on iNat's current geoprivacy treatment and [2] guidance on how to configure this for our different platforms for individual `Observations` (our core domain entity to which geo is attached).

I'll at least share that this is on our radar to look at, but I wouldn't expect changes in the next few months. For now, we still want your observations, but if this is a concern you have, please take a look at the geoprivacy settings!

[1]: iNat's geoprivacy explainer https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/1... [2]: platform-specific guidance on configuring geoprivacy for an Observation https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/1...

iNat eng here, non-authoritative rep

handling this concern is on our radar but I can't speak to delivery timeline. It my involve timed "obscured" windows (obscure things for this hiking weekend) and/or user-configurable geofences (obscure observations around my home but not anywhere else).

we _also_ want to respect the geoprivacy of wildlife: sometimes observations generate _problematic_ attention. For sensitive species, we want people to report them, but we don't want to be complicit in or responsible for interested people flocking to the observation and potentially spooking the observed species.

we can all dream

that's funny because we _just_ introduced cloudflare.

it's not my wheelhouse, but it would be comedic so let me know if you get the legit cloudflare host connection warning _and then_ land on the how it works that you mentioned looks like cloudflare.

The component renders any time the setWhatever function is called, similar to this.setState() in class components. The presumption is anything that you're storing in state is depended on by the component. If it's not, it doesn't make sense to have it in state anyway.

Are you non-sarcastically defending Alex Jones?

Babel has some crazy throughput going through it to drive a massive percentage of the modern web. Wild to see how low the funding is.

This is terrible.

$25 for 12 minutes from one place in the loop to O'Hare

CTA is $2.50 for 37 minutes (the $5 is if you start from O'Hare)

This is only benefitting people for whom 25 minutes is worth $20/$22.50.

$1bn or whatever absurd cost it comes out to be is much better spent on improving transit for the actual public.

Or you know, to stop shutting down schools.

EDIT: typo

https://docsify.js.org

Rally Health | Chicago, SF, DC, Minneapolis | ONSITE

React Native Engineer

We're hiring a React Native dev to help us build out a high profile consumer-facing app for a Fortune 10 company. You'll join a mixed team of React specialists and native mobile specialists. We're a well-disciplined group, with a strong focus on developer responsibility for quality (with the help of Enzyme and Detox). Our team also has dedicated time blocked off for OSS work to contribute back to the libraries we use.

Rally Health makes consumer-focused healthcare products that help people shop for care with doctor and pricing information, get into healthy habits, and learn about their benefits. Obligatory tech list: Scala, JavaScript, AWS, Postgres, Terraform, Docker, ElasticSearch, etc.

https://www.rallyhealth.com/about/careers/1048473

As an American working in healthcare tech: it is absolutely barbaric.

We have the most expensive medicine in the world, but it's all treatment, not prevention and both only for those who can afford it.

That was roughly my guess. I asked because I ran into a specific edge case where this is finicky.

AFAIK, arrow functions do (and should) have names if they're assigned to a variable.

  const foo = () => {};
  // undefined
  foo.name
  // "foo"

  export const foo = () => {};

The name works fine in the browser, but since jest/enzyme use node to run tests, I had issues with functional components (defined as arrow functions and immediately exported) were missing their names.

FWIW, this isn't an issue in Babel 7.

Anyone have an idea why it suggests named functions instead of arrow functions for functional components?

Ditto for React. Pretty much every "how do I do this" is covered in the official tutorial and every "how should I do this" is covered by supplemental guides (still official docs).

Some good ones: "thinking in React", "lifting state up", "controlled components", and similar docs in redux: "you might not need redux"

"what to expect with our brave, game-changing webkit security updates"

I mean. I guess not all love letters need to be reciprocated so I'll save my nits on the headline.

Yup! It shows up by default, IIRC.

It's a layer on top of WebVR, similar to A-Frame.

FWIW, Sacha posted a "sorry for the delay" post a while back: https://medium.com/@sachagreif/the-state-of-js-2017-results-...

Agreed on wanting it earlier, but the results are still super valuable.

It's pretty rough on newcomers as well as devs trying to find docs and blog posts, but in contrast to naming it something else, it was pretty effective at establishing a user base.

It would have been a lot easier on the world if 1.x was the last version of anything called Angular and Google named the new thing FooBarJS.

But Google knows how software teams work. Names and versions are easier to evaluate than trying things out or running comparative analysis.

Teams hire "Angular" developers which usually means "1 or 2" even though it very much shouldn't.

Teams will set aside time to "upgrade to Angular 2" more freely than they would set aside time to "switch to a different framework, FooBar.js", even though with Angular 2, those are the same.

Even if teams would set aside time to "Upgrade to new framework", they're much more likely to do a alternatives analysis if it's not just a version number changing.

That said, I think this hurts developers and teams, and I think it's loosely nefarious, but it was probably necessary for Angular 2 to get the adoption it has today.

Curious: I assumed it had converged around UglifyJS. Do you use something different?

While that's in line with what the Angular team has communicated to differentiate 1.x and 2+, I disagree. Since "Angular" is unnamespaced and "AngularJS" is not disambiguated enough from "that JS library called Angular", I think the numbers are important to outsiders.

My org has been dealing with Angular and AngularJs for the past two years and developers and non-developers alike get confused or unclear all the time when we try to communicate about the two. The only thing that's been successful has been to describe them as "Angular 1.x" and "Angular 2+".

On top of that, when doing searches for documentation and issues, it's still absolutely necessary to add "2" to searches for the right version of the framework.

Hi.

The "wealth distribution" is entirely at CAH's expense. They only surfaced that language because they made a point of communicating to the non-recipients that they wouldn't be receiving anything on top of their original contract (of getting the game for cash, which they totally got).

Thanks for the input!

I realize I didn't clarify explicitly. While I'd agree that a one-time $15 gamble would be an irrationally exorbitant expense if it was in place of a family meal, I think we're talking about different things.

Even if "poor people" were <$1000 away from financial ruin, $15 towards a reusable entertainment asset is quite different than $15 towards one-off lottery tickets.

I guess I'm coming from: I feel like we're in a relatively cushy bubble so maybe let's talk bubble-external impact?

I think this is a good thing that a private company is doing. They're benefitting from PR, but they're also using their stance on the capital and renown front to make a statement that it's cool to help out people who need help. Oh and also they're using their own cash to do that.

They didn't say fuck anyone and they didn't say fuck capitalism.

If anything, they're optimizing for capitalism: "people who care about the emotional plight of individuals in need would probably react positively to us publicly helping them out... and be more likely to buy our product."

it was not meant as a perfect example of anything

+1 this

I feel like we tend to demonize incremental progress in favor of easy criticism.

Let's maybe ask: "Is this a Good Thing? Is it better than nothing? Is it better than than yesterday's suggestion?"

If you answer no to any of those, shut the fuck up with your criticism and start working on the next iteration.

I'll agree on the hole-in-the-ground schtick which I guess I attribute to a social experiment.

As far as the border property, I wish more people of consequential power/capital would follow their lead and buy up border property. The wall is preposterous and any form of resistance is credible in my eyes.

Happy to!

First, I chose the word "objectively" in the sense that win/wins are still possible in consumeristic markets. I think most businesses would have taken a flexible $100k USD and spent it on marketing or expansion or something. The fact that this was distributed freely to people who self-identified as having use of it is good.

Second, flawed/unfair/biased/imperfect does not mean that something can't have net gains. Just because a company recognizes and discloses their faults, that shouldn't dismiss them from credibility. I'd rather a service that promises 99.5% availability than no service at all (or worse, a service that doesn't disclose their reliability).

Third, I think that the public, publicized, monetary actions of a trendy business have an additional non-material benefit. On top of any fiscal commentary about this bit, CAH is quite popular, and they have enough financial leeway to make a statement. This statements is "we are a business. we have knowledge that some of our customers have a greater need than others. we are making a decision to help those people with greater need".

Their statement is no more prescriptive than that. But damn if it doesn't make me question every other wildly profitable business, including the corp I work for.

Hi! Thanks for responding!

I'll admit I was dismissive in my attempt at brevity so thank you for challenging me.

I didn't intend to shut down discussion. I was countering the flood of commentary around what I perceived as issues ancillary to the actual topic.

On the topic of scalability, I might been too dismissive, but I'd rather focus on the positivity of the topic as a whole, lamoon its impact, even if localized, and then secondarily bring up the topic of scalability.

I was intentionally stark because I recognize HN as being highly volatile. Top-level commentary often controls the conversation and I'd rather validate the topic than waste nuance in pessimistic challenges.

pokes head out of curtain

What if $15 means something different to people with fungible assets* vs. those where money is tight.

*: HN population