bodhi

I’ll preface with IANACL, but you seem to be making a moral argument yourself about A), that it is not reasonable.

You have, I assume, a licensed copy of Harry Potter. That license restricts you from doing certain activities, like making (distributing? Lets go with distributing) derived works. Your models are derived works. Thus when you distribute your models, you’re violating the licence terms you “agreed” to when you acquired your copy of Harry Potter.

This is no judgement by me about whether that’s reasonable or not, just my understanding of the mechanics.

Calibre-web can, I use it with an app on an iPad. It’s not immediately obvious how to access it, but here’s a GitHub issue with good info: https://github.com/janeczku/calibre-web/issues/2103

Do you mean SAML and/or generic OIDC? We’ve got a Metabase instance authenticating people via Google Workspaces (G Suite).

Its a loquacious take on “fell off the back of a truck”.

“Nightmare” is too strong, but it looks from the simple example that generators are managed by jumping between coroutines, and one of the coroutines is the renderer? (Sorry, I’m on my phone and probably not conveying my point very well)

I’d be interested in seeing this hooked up to Xstate.

The way the generators appear to work reminds me a lot of Concur: https://github.com/ajnsit/concur-documentation

But controlling or understanding the control flow in Crank generator components, ie. when does ‘yield‘ return, looks like a bit of a nightmare!

How about phishing?

It’s not exactly what you were after, but there’s a paper called “The Expressive Power of Programming Languages” that might be worth a look:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167642391...

What are peoples thoughts on using TLS client certificates for authentication?

Given we're talking about APIs, we avoid many of the UX problems, but it feels like taking on a different set of problems than just using a bearer token. It does provide baked in solutions for things like revocation and expiry though.

Here in Australia we get a mix of US and British kids shows (on ABC Kids, have no idea what is shown on commercial channels), and its trivially easy to pick the US ones because they are dripping in morals, lessons, and such (and are also terrible).

I've started describing it to people as: British shows are designed to entertain first, and perhaps kids can learn something, whereas the US approach is THOU SHALT MAKE SURE CHILDREN UNDERSTAND RIGHT AND WRONG!.

If I understand you correctly, you've just increased your output latency by 50% ;)

You might be missing the "down" part of each slide? In the bottom right corner there's the 4-arrow thing, and if down is 'not disabled', there are more slides to see.

I can't stand this kind of "2-d" presentation...

It already appeared, and is called Purescript. It's great, and it's about as likely to gain traction as Haskell.

Perhaps it's related to self-identification? People don't self-identify as cancerous, the cancer (or disease?) is an external actor invading the body. Whereas a disability is a feature or aspect of one's body.

(I don't have first hand experience with either, so I'm just musing too..)

Similar: http://httpstat.us

I agree. Also, I think the amount of input you have into an activity is also somewhat inversely proportional to the shock when the accident happens.

People actively drive the car, so they may think "I have a chance to affect the outcome", whereas being a plane passenger is basically vegetating for X hours in a very uncomfortable seat, and there is no way you can actively influence the outcome in a positive way.

That was my thought as well. Just to drive the point home:

costs some 10,000 Americans their lives each year

with

Maybe a plane load every month or two.

Would have to be 100 planes/year (at ~100 people/plan)! Imagine if you had 8 plane crashes/month due to drunk pilots!

Here's another reference:

http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/11/from-l-theorem-to-spreadsheet...

(I completely missed your GitHub link the first time I read this comment)

Huh, my joke actually turned into me learning something, thanks!

If we're golfing,

    $ = document.querySelector.bind(document);

they just say; he/she died of X

That's what my sneaking suspicion was. I recall having heard expressions like "after a long battle with illness", but your point makes a lot of sense.

Actually, I realise there's no mention of losing in that expression, which was made clear to me after finding this article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carole-brody-fleet/long-term-i...

after searching Google for the above phrase.

> Stop saying that please.

Might come across as snarky, but really meaning not to: What's an expression that would be more acceptable?

In the picture you linked, he's not wearing two arm guards. He has an arm guard on his left arm (the one holding the bow), and a finger guard on the right (the one drawing the string).

Still, essential services like [...] chiropractors

Is it just me that finds this odd? Or are Chiropractors much more common in Denmark?

As far as I can see, you need to use `Box`

Which is exactly what you said in the first place!

So you can have a list of Box<Show> in Rust, but you can't have a list of Show in Haskell.

But isn't this comparing two different things? You can't have a list of trait/typeclass in either language (excuse the pseudo-syntax):

    Rust: [Bar]
    Haskell: [Bar a => a]

    Rust: [Box<Bar>]
    Haskell: [Box Bar]

This works on single instances, but I'm trying to see how it plays out with lists of `Bar`. As far as I can see, you need to use `Box`: https://play.rust-lang.org/?code=struct%20Foo%3B%0Astruct%20...

Which seems to me to be effectively the same as `Barrable` in this case, although it's more generic.

Aha, thanks (to twic also). Now I get it!

but you can't have a list of Show in Haskell

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but my naive interpretation is that you can:

    Prelude> :t map show
    map show :: Show a => [a] -> [String]

you cannot have two records share a field name in a single module

(emphasis added.) I'm still a Haskell beginner, so I'm not the best person to comment on how this works out in practice.

I don't want to come across as mean, but this is a thread for pedants, and I couldn't resist the irony:

So “we are going to go to the airport with the bus tomorrow” would be correct

Actually you go by bus, or on the bus, never with the bus.