So, hold on--the author's soul-breaking complaint isn't all of the "quirks" and inconsistencies with the Date functions, but rather the fact that it's an object? Specifically, an object with mutable properties in a language when all objects have mutable properties?
I mean, the author's conclusion is correct. But I disagree with the rationale. It's like hating an evil dictatorship because they use the wrong font in their propaganda.
Here's my brilliant idea: the longer it takes for an answer to be marked correct, or the more answers there are before one is marked correct, the more points that answer deserves.
The idea of one “accepted answer” there always bugged me. The correct/best answer of many things changes radically over time. For instance The only sane way to do a lot of things in “JavaScript” in 2009 was to install jquery and use it. Most of those same things can (and should) be done just as succinctly with native code today, but the accepted answers in practice were rarely updated or changed. I don’t even know if you could retroactively years later re-award it to a newer answer. Since the gamification angle was so prominent, that might rob the decade-old author of their points for their then-correctness, so idk if they even allowed it.
I noticed a similar thing for Python 3 questions, closed as a duplicate of a Python 2 response. Why they weren't collated and treated as a living document is beyond me.
My feeling is that many times the moderators are not competent to decide correctly.
They could go with "when in doubt, keep the duplicate", but they chose the opposite. Meaning that instead of happy users and duplicates, they have no duplicates, and no more users.
How about if people with a higher reputation contribute an exponentially higher score when voting? Like, someone with ten top-rated answers has a 1,000-point vote (more nuanced than that, obviously).
Surely you're being hyperbolic. I've seen some atrocious UX before. Maybe what you mean is it's a good idea but the scrolling part should be list-based instead of page-based.
No because what if the list is half cut off by the page but you want to go to the bottom? If it doesn’t scroll the page it’s even worse. If it does scroll the page it’s not great. It’s just bad design. Also not intuitive. I didn’t read the directions and it took me a couple seconds to get what was going on.
It's not that the product you're building is a commodity. It's that the tools you're using to built it are. Why not build a landing page using HTML and CSS and tailwind? Why not use swift to make an app? Why not write an AWS lambda using JavaScript?
This reads like "Hey, we're not vibe coding, but when we do, we're careful!" with hints of "AI coding changes the costs associated with writing code, designing features, and refactoring" sprinkles in to stand out.
When they say their battery storage capacity is 15,000 MW, do they mean MWh? Because watts are time-independent, or rather, they're like speed to Joule's (watt-hour's) distance.
I struggle to understand why journalists consistently failed to use Wh as a unit of power. People generally can understand it because it is how they are billed and how appliances are rated.
Even on HN people will defend not using Wh because there is some grid or city in the USA that bills differently.
Battery storage is always measured in the amount of power that can be delivered (Watts). Secondarily it’s measured in the number of hours that power can be delivered (hours, which is almost always about 4.) To get MWh you multiply watts times hours. This is standard in the industry and has nothing to do with reporters.
Because American literacy in math and hard sciences has only declined over the decades since the post-Sputnik spurt that benefited my generation. Journalism as practiced today doesn't require scientific literacy or rigor, or at least, they are secondary to the purposes of the writers' employers.
Later, they say “lithium ion batteries only have 4 to 6 hours of capacity”, which again, what? But maybe that implies that the actual capacity rating is their “capacity” x 4-6.
Uh... "Wh" is not a unit of power. Watts are units of power. Watt-hours measure energy. Probably journalists are getting this wrong for the same reason you are.
The commenter was right that the correct unit is Wh, then slipped up. Does gasoline contain power? Do "high-power" Li-ion batteries? In common parlance, power and energy are used interchangeably. I believe people writing about science should hold themselves to a higher standard, but there is always something more important.
I do not know why this particular one gets engineers so annoyed. Energy and power are synonymous in conversation with normal people. There is very little real world scenarios where people would be exposed to the precise meanings -of course everyone gets it wrong.
No, you were right on the money. Just idly thinking out loud why this is even an issue. Muggles get technical details wrong all the time. Yet any article about energy is going to get a few people riled up when the units are wrong.
Utilities are used using MW when discussing supply and demand. Because balancing that is critical. So power is what they care about when discussing grid connections.
The billing side and customers are concerned with total energy. So kwh.
Journalists typically don't know the difference. Which is why they list storage capacity in watts. They don't know any better and they don't care.
Far as I can tell multiply the watts by 4 hours to get watt hours.
I'm not an expert and have not yet worked with splats, however I understood that unlike super-sharp-edged triangles they can represent complicatedly-transparent 'soft' phenomena like fur or clouds or similar that would ordinarily need to be rendered using possibly semi-transparent curves/sheathes (for fur/grass) or voxels for cloudy things like steam/mist. I gather splats can also represent and reproduce a limited amount of view-dependent specularity, as other commenters have said this is not dynamic and cannot easily deal with changing scene geometry or light sources.. still sounds like a fun research-project I make it do more in terms of illumination though!
It's just a simpler primitive I assume. Blurs and colors and angles are simpler than 3D geometries, so it's probably more aligned with working/thinking with other very low-level primitives with minimal dimensions (like the math of neural networks). I dunno, I'm kinda vibing a response here -- maybe someone else can give you a more authoritative answer
It's perfect for my use case, which is making individual square letters to print. PITA to ensure that the square are uniform when the letters are not uniform in size.
