Important to note that postfix dereferencing is experimental, and does not replace the existing method of dereferencing.
Also, I think the deprecation of core CGI.pm is pretty major. For now it just issues a deprecation warning, but will be removed totally from core in future versions, only being available via the CPAN.
You install one of the many modules from CPAN, i.e. Plack, Dancer, Mojolicious, CGI. The only change is that an old module that has way too much badly implemented functionality has been set on the path towards removal from the default Perl installation.
I can see zero difference in the information density between the existing non-responsive design of that page [0], and the beta version of the responsive design [1].
While your point that mobile first design inevitably causes a lack of information density at desktop resolutions has some merit, it does not apply in this case.
True... but often I get a feature request and so rather than adding another file, it's often easier for me to just uncomment something that was previously unneeded.
Every see those vertical yellow gateways at border crossings and interstate weigh stations? Those are radiation scanners. Partially to keep terrorists at bay, but also to keep stuff like this at bay. In the 3rd world, this is sadly a frequent occurrence that these materials are used as scrap.
The hapless Sotelo--who, remarkably, seems to have escaped serious contamination--was arrested in 1990 on theft charges. In the prison where he still awaits sentencing, the guards call him El Cobalto--the Cobalt Man.
Don't abuse the text field in the submission form to add
commentary to links. The text field is for starting
discussions. If you're submitting a link, put it in the url
field. If you want to add initial commentary on the link,
write a blog post about it and submit that instead.
That brings up the question: what's considered blogspam and what's considered good commentary? Is that automated, or is there a judgement made by the moderators?
Will it though? I can think of plenty of blog posts that were commentary on links (albeit fairly extensive and/or insightful), that didn't get flagged as blogspam. OTOH, if all you do is editorialize on a link, with little to no insight, shouldn't it be flagged as blogspam? Perhaps one of the biggest reasons I don't blog very much is that I don't feel like I'm contributing anything of value by merely linking somewhere and going "isn't this cool?" I believe blog posts should have more substance.
I was thinking of using http://gist.io for this, but a service that let's you minimally blog, and submit to HN with a single button click would be ideal :)
What's the dividing line between commentary and starting a discussion with a primary reference? I've come to really disagree with the strict title rule. IMO, HN should be more of a community for sharing ideas than a simple link aggregator. Someone submits a link because they found something interesting about it and wanted to share. They should be granted some agency to frame the discussion.
The rule just seems overly bureaucratic and inflexible. Often the link is appropriately titled and the content speaks for itself, but not always. An original title arguably has just as much potential to negatively impact discussion as a badly editorialized title. For a Wikipedia article - why was it submitted? For a link titled simply "Jolla," how is that even remotely useful? What the hell is that and why should I click it? For a normal article, maybe there was a particular angle or interesting small bit of it to highlight. Enforcing the creation of your own "wrapper" blog post also smells of unnecessary bureaucratic overhead. Why is it better to trade a "privileged position at the top of the page" for a privileged position at the URL of the link itself, that is now misdirecting from the actual piece (aka blogspam)?
I can see the downside, for example a popular article where multiple people attempt to put their own spin on it, fragmenting and confusing the discussion. But this happens already, how many different threads introducing Amazon Prime Air were there yesterday? Eventually the community settles on the preferred one and the rest die out. It's a trade-off, and would take some subjective tweaking and moderating (which is already necessary anyway), but I think discussions could be substantially improved by allowing the submitter the chance to "start things off on the right foot," when appropriate.
> Nothing of this has anything to do with cargo cults. There is an actual reason behind every rule.
There may be reasons, but I find there is often a lack of understanding about the context in which that rule was developed, and the compromises that were made. A developer not understanding why things must be done in a certain way, but doing it anyway sounds pretty cargo-culty to me.
Well, that's the definition of a cargo cult. Following some rules without actually knowing why.
If you use IDs because some person on the internet said "Use IDs, for the love of God", you're cargo-culting.
Thing is, I know why I follow these rules. I'm the one who wrote them and refined them over the course of several years. I made informed decisions based on 13+ years of experience of which I spent the last 4 writing ecommerce related frontend code for dozens of websites.
This stuff is never done. It's always based on my current knowledge/experience and the limitations of the current boat-anchor version of IE.
Nowadays, my code is more maintainable, I can actually do some sort of "refactoring", and the total amount of selectors is very close to the optimum.
Anyhow, not using IDs makes writing CSS easier. Even if you don't understand the reasons/mechanics behind it.
To be able to see this information on the linked page, click on "Advanced: Enable" at the bottom of the screen. Then you'll see the "Output Scripts" section where this info is contained.
