I mean I sort of believe that most Ramones t-shirt sales came along because of the listens, but then again I see lots of Misfits t-shirts on kids born this century and considering it's in Denmark it seems unlikely it's because their parents were big Misfits fans.
Of course Misfits had a much more impressive visual aesthetic, so that might explain their continuing design relevance.
sure, and also Montezuma didn't actually plan on diarrhea ruining people's vacations, but vernacular usage being what it is we have the phrase Montezuma's revenge.
I only found Edison in the headline, I didn't find it anywhere in the body, nor did I find Tesla. Glancing through the article it almost seems like someone tried to make a catchy headline to get clicks.
>As I understand it, React was an attempt to shoehorn "immediate-mode UI"[1] on top of retained-mode UI
the problem is that the typical modern web page is considered as a combination of immediate-mode and retained-mode.
therefore, as it is wasteful to update all the page when only a few components on the page change, people want to only update parts of the page immediately when changes happen.
furthermore the typical modern web page only makes sense in the context of the modern web site, so some pages are almost everything on the page needs to update all the time, some pages are nothing here needs to update until the user does anything, some pages are nothing here needs to update at all, and other pages are just a couple components need to update all the time based on various things.
This context of what a web site is like is very much determined by the type of the site, where many e-commerce sites are affected by all sorts of data that occur outside of whatever page the user is on and need to update all sorts of different components on a page, many governmental sites are almost just static, with all sorts of variations in between.
I was just responding to the usage that the parent commenter had which was
>As I understand it, React was an attempt to shoehorn "immediate-mode UI"[1] on top of retained-mode UI
which I interpreted as the only possible meaning, in relation to React, being UI components that must rerender as close to immediately as possible vs. UI components that do not need immediate rerendering when the underlying data has changed.
I realize that is not a particularly correct use of the phrases, but then that is what happens when you use a concept from one type of development metaphorically in another type of development, memetic slippage as it were.
> In immediate mode, the scene (complete object model of the rendering primitives) is retained in the memory space of the client, instead of the graphics library. This implies that in an immediate mode application, the lists of graphical objects to be rendered are kept by the client and are not saved by the graphics library API. The application must re-issue all drawing commands required to describe the entire scene each time a new frame is required, regardless of actual changes.
React is simulating immediate mode by having the developer describe the full rendered result from the current data state. The developer / app code doesn't need to keep track of what changes need to be done to get the browser from its current state to the desired state, React does that for you.
Retained mode is where the developer / app does have to concern itself with the current browser state and issue the desired updates themselves, like how everything was done in the jquery era and earlier.
If I was outside of the US I would consider it as an effort to reduce risk, not virtue signaling.
If I was a citizen of a nation directly and recently threatened by the U.S I would consider it more as a "screw you" than virtue signaling.
This is probably because I am not especially caring about virtue, but I do like pointing out ways that alternate explanations for things some people might find virtuous could pertain.
Meanwhile in Finland it's still official government policy to get at least 50% of the population to have higher education, even though academic unemployment is already at all time high.
It feels like nobody in the government is even trying to prepare for the massive changes in job market.
Part of the problem is: No one currently knows where these "massive changes" will lead to. It's also not clear if more people working in the trades will be a good macroeconomic alternative either.
> That, like most jobs, is going to need to be done entirely by people who are just doing it for the money
why then do they all have those interview rounds where you have to talk about what really attracted you to work at this boring company and how you would love to do that kind of work? They evidently haven't gotten the memo.
I have never once pretended to be “passionate” about working. Never wrote a single line of code that I haven’t gotten paid for since I graduated from college 30 years ago. I was a hobbyist before college for 6 years.
I’ve gone through the BigTech guantlet successfully. Even then I showed I cared about doing my job well and competently.
I have purposefully thrown nuggets out during interviews letting companies know that I had a life outside of work, I’m not going to work crazy hours and in the latter half of my career, I don’t do on call.
We've banned this account. We can't have vile comments like some of the ones your account has posted in recent days, without taking any action, if we're to have any standards at all here.
I've also never seen anyone slam dance carrying a Ramones album, but I have seen them slam dance wearing a Ramones t-shirt that got tore up.
reply