I've observed this as well. People who believe in evolution can't seem to stop themselves from using "intelligent design" language to anthropomorphize evolution.
That's true, but there are a lot of places where ids live, but where I can't add `user-select: all`. For example, in terminal (logs), Studio3t (db client) etc.
The whole point of this article is that double-click to select a word doesn't work with a UUID... though, I think this should just be fixed: I have XTerm set up where double clicking selects a word, triple clicking selects a filename (which can include a hyphen, but not a slash), quadruple clicking selects a URL or path, and quintuple clicking selects the rest of the line.
The workaround I've landed on is double-click and hold, then drag in the correct direction. Precise enough to just grab the UUID, imprecise enough to be quick and not annoying
This is what I use, because it works almost everywhere almost exactly the same way, even when quite a lot else doesn’t have that quality. I similarly use long-press+slide for very similar behavior on iOS (although that has much more variance in behavior across apps, and sometimes even within the same app).
Adding clicks is not ideal, many people already have some troubles with double clicks (because they can't be fast enough, or it hurts), triple click is already harder.
Also more than 3 clicks starts taking a considerable about of time.
Now replace the double click, desktop, interaction, with press and hold, touch screen. I don't know of any triple click interaction that maps to a simplistic touch screen interaction.
The example used is a URL. I don't believe there is an equivalent for the address bar. Plenty of other examples exist, but that one is pretty easily reachable by users.
I like that some tools also provide a copy button next to fields, it looks like two overlapping boxes (kind of like: ⎘). If I were building a tool that exposed user copyable keys, I'd be sure to add these to my forms and fields. A brief contextual "copied!" modal that quickly fades away is a nice touch too.
Yep, double-click+drag is how I do it. On Linux double-click selects a chunk, and then dragging selects more chunks (fully). I double-click on the first or last chunk and go towards the other end.
Not as good as double-click selects all the id, but at least id doesn't take too much time and I don't have to precisely go to one of the ends.
There is danger in that as well, you could be copying transparent/hidden text as part of the copy, and if you paste and <enter> without reading what you've entered, it can be dangerous.
That being said, most people copy and run bash script straight off the internet, so clearly not worried about copying stuff they haven't read!
> That being said, most people copy and run bash script straight off the internet, so clearly not worried about copying stuff they haven't read!
The most common complaint about "pipe to bash" I've seen is the possibility for the server's response to detect it's being piped to bash, and then execute malicious code. The suggested remedy is to first download the install script (and check it) then run it. -- This seems overblown to me, since if you think the server may be malicious, then downloading programs from that server also seems risky.
Criticising people for not reading bash scripts from install pages is weirder to me. -- It's possible that some software author would hide malware in the install script; but, then why wouldn't they just hide malware in the installed program itself.
> This seems overblown to me, since if you think the server may be malicious, then downloading programs from that server also seems risky.
I heed the risk with the reasoning that even a benevolent server may be compromised, and that detecting pipe to bash is a potential way for that to go unnoticed.
If you buy the S&P500 then someone else sold the S&P500 for the same amount of money. The cash doesn't disappear, it just moves to a different person who presumably sold the S&P500 because they need cash to spend it.
With what method? Before Xi's rising, China wasn't exactly a nice place to begin with. The corruption was rampant, and the gangs were effecting the lives of common people. All the communist shit mixed in with capitalist shit. The only thing kept China going is people's wishes to improve their lives, not some gov policy.
Given the track record on how the Communist Party's China solve it's problems (likely doing patches rather than finding long-lasting systematic solutions), it's quite reasonable to assume that a quasi-free China will have other type of issues going on that are equality bad as fist-tightening.
There has been a systemic decrease in freedoms and grey areas in China under Xi over the past few years.
Criticism and protests have always been fairly common in China, but the level to which they have been cracked down and prosecuted under Xi is stark compared to the late 2000s and early 2010s.
Furthermore, the CCP always had the ability to choose to harden the Great Firewall, but never chose to until the 2nd Xi Administration.
Furthermore, Xi dismantled a number of the checks and balances the CCP developed after Mao's death in order to prevent a Mao 2.0 from arising. The Premiership and State Council has been hollowed out, and regulations such as term limits and federalism have been thrown on the wayside.
Finally, under the guise of anti-corruption reforms, the Xi Administration has increasingly cut off average Chinese from the rest of the world by severely limiting cash and asset outflow (which is needed if you want to study abroad because being an international student isn't cheap).
China was never a Disneyland, but the level of authoritarianism in China today was unseen since the death of Mao.
> wasn't exactly a nice place to begin with
I agree with that, but the issue is selective enforcement.
People like Bo Xilai and Jack Ma absolutely deserve to be prosecuted for corrupt business practices and criminality, yet similar enforcement doesn't extend to business and party leaders close to Xi, and in some cases Xi himself (such as his tenure in Fujian).
There is a way to walk a middle ground between full blown authoritarianism and managed authoritarianism. Russia pre-2016 is a good example of how managed autocracy could work (it sucks but it's still more free than China today)
> continuation of the tradition
This statement reeks of Orientalism.
Taiwan, HK, and Singapore are children of the same traditions, yet are significantly less authoritarian than Mainland China today.
Ascribing cultural reasons takes the onus of responsibility away from the individuals who systemically undermined institutions within China.
> Unlike in a democracy (Japan) where it's leaders are expected to leave the office to someone else
This was China before 2018. After Deng Xiaoping's reforms, the Politburo made 2 term rule a requirement, and formalized the 2nd term Secretariat to Party Secretary pathway
> In August, a man rode a Jet Ski, loaded with extra fuel, nearly two hundred miles to South Korea. According to rights activists, he had served time in prison for wearing a T-shirt that called China’s leader “Xitler.”
I'm currently paying Raindrop.io 28$/year. I would easily pay 100$/year for a good bookmarking service that archives the pages that I bookmark (which Raindrop is doing well for me right now).
I'm curious as well – if there was a SQLite file somewhere that I could read from to hook up e.g. an Alfred plugin or whatever, that would be valuable.
There is indeed a sqlite file! ~/Library/Godspeed/godspeed-db.sqlite. But you shouldn't edit it or things won't sync properly. Feel free to read, though!
It is okay to care, but nobody is always right, and noone has a monopoly on good ideas.
It follows then that the person who just 'cares too much' will be on the wrong side of a decision. At that point the best outcome is for them to either change their mind, or let go.
Caring obsessively can be a negative in some competitive environments, e.g., a very insular/non-collaborative university department. But I suppose I might not call those other professors coworkers.
> One of the top things that I want in a job is coworkers who care obsessively.
While I agree with the premise, the "downstream" really matters though.
There's a lot of different ways to care obsessively and many are quite toxic if you've ever worked with them. One example comes to mind is I've been there were PR comments are way overbearing. There's definitely good points/notes, but nitpicking, snide comments, holier-than-art attitude easily comes along with the boat.
"With love" is such a blase statement, but it really has to be the starting point. That caring combined with respect has to be present to be a healthy, long term working environment.
I'm going to plug my PR log level policy here: I add a tag to my PRs asking for "error level" or "debug level" or whatever in between. Then the reviewer can tune their feedback. I started doing this when I was working with a diverse group of folks with different backgrounds. I'd like it to be a standard thing.
I find that I want different kinds of feedback through the process of developing a PR, and whether it's over a day or a month matters a lot too.
That way, I can safely be obsessive about things when giving PR feedback, in the knowledge they're asking for "debug level" feedback, or give it just-the-facts review if they're just trying to get something merged that has been reviewed to hell and back.
Well, y'know. You're likely to be better off if you put that desire to one side and focus within.
Consider a soup kitchen vs a supermarket checkout. The people working at the soup kitchen arguably care a lot more. The person at the supermarket checkout can be as glassy eyed as they feel and still be part of feeding more people in absolute terms.
Humans seem to have some sort of emotional heuristic to focus on care (really, focus on motivation of others I think). That works in small groups but it is highly misleading in large ones. In large groups, the only factors that matter are incentives and competence. If the incentives are good and the people are competent, good results will happen. If the reverse, corruption. The motivation heuristic actually does a lot of harm because it causes a huge amount of noise in the discourse where people whinge about this person or that having bad character to no avail. It is often true that people have impure motivations, but at scale that is true of effectively everyone. There are the devils you know and the devils waiting to become known. We can get great outcomes regardless; our politicians are cut from the same cloth as the Nazi and Communist parties but look at the difference in outcomes.
One of the most peaceful insights I ever stumbled across was that of the people in the workplace who cared less than me, there were a significant and productive subset who were just doing more good than me through competence and being thoughtful about what work to pick up.
I've been on large and small teams of people that cared and didn't care. It feels noble and reasonable and right to tie it to a greater purpose; like your soup kitchen vs supermarket example. It's not that type of care the OP is getting at.
It's closer to a craftmanship kind of care. Being proud of what you're putting into the world. Caring that it works well, not because the purpose is important, but because it's something you're doing and you want to do it well.
If someone wants high personal standards then ok, that'll be good for them in the long term. But if we're talking about colleagues that care then that is just a cover for bad management. And fair enough bad management is endemic in the software industry so teams pick up the slack.
But it is management's job to decide on software quality standards and provide feedback to devs. Expecting the developers to be responsible for quality as a baseline is just a path to burnout for those devs; because then they are going to go mad because everyone on the team has different personal standards. The person with the highest standards on the team will never be satisfied.
You can't reasonably expect teammates to cover for bad managers, it is much cleverer to learn to identify good managers and try to work for them. Or become one.
Maybe I'd pick on an auditor as an example. They need to think about whether people are doing what they say they do. They don't need to care about what they are doing.
To me, caring means expecting work to be done to your standards instead of an independent standard.
How recently have you read it? I thought it was a worthwhile read when I first read it 12 years ago, but I picked it up to skim a couple years ago and was struck with how much of it was irrelevant for modern JS due to changes in the language spec.
