That is a very simplistic, and incorrect, response to the problem.
GitHub provides computing resources, for free, to attract users. This is just one of the challenges of that business model. If this is intolerable for GitHub then it's up to them to find a strategy to counter it.
We don't need to ask the government to punish everyone participating in cryptocurrency.
>That is a very simplistic, and incorrect, response to the problem.
Perhaps we should consider higher-order consequences of doing absolutely nothing. Hypothetically, what happens if free-to-use code collaboration tools are forced out of the market due to rampant abuse and zero regulation? Do we care that there is now a higher barrier of entry to engage in the craft?
Do you want GitHub to start requiring state-issued identification for creating new accounts? That is where this cat-mouse game is going to end up if you allow it to continue naturally.
"Transpiling" may never go away, but it will cease to be the first thing everyone reaches for when web assembly comes out and reaches the point you can use it. It's the first thing right now since it's pretty much the only thing. Web assembly will pick up a lot of the use cases. Something like Coffeescript will probably still target JS by design, something like Emscripten will tend to target web assembly, and where the in between will end up is anybody's guess.
1. JScript added conditional compilation directly in the browser which was IE-only (extend, extinguish). TypeScript compiles to cross-browser JavaScript (which does none of the above)
2. TC39 is supposed to be working in a "pave the cowpaths" (1) mode. Before new features get integrated into EcmaScript, TC39 looks into what the community is already doing (existing cowpaths), then integrates that into the language. Not only that but TC39 can learn from the mistakes of TS and Flowtype when they add type system support in EcmaScript. We are in dire need of one - and thanks to Microsoft's and Facebook's explorations, we now know what kind of type system would work for JS.
(1) For example, we got arrow functions in ES2015 thanks to CoffeeScript.
This was my first thought after reading it. I've used gitlab.com, also locally, and it is ok. Presumably people will want to stick with github due to popularity though.
It's even more interesting than you think. The Conservative Party do much better under Scotland's system of proportional representation than in Westminster.
It seems right that the Conservative Party should have representation in Scotland's politics, but it seems wrong that Scotland is ruled by them.
The disproportionate Westminster system - where a reasonably sized body of Scottish Conservatives currently have 1 representative out of 304 in the London-based party - contributes to major underrepresentation of Scotland in the existing government.
> It seems right that the Conservative Party should have representation in Scotland's politics, but it seems wrong that Scotland is ruled by them.
That's a bit like saying that you only believe in democracy when it's your own party that wins the election, otherwise you'll take your ball and go home.
One thing to note is that prior to the current Conservative coalition, we had a huge Labour majority for 13 years that was largely Scottish. So the Scots were ruled by a party that they voted for.
When we talk about independence, we're not talking in the same way as say, India for example. Where we had one nation that was immensely ethnically and culturally different, being ruled by people who had no interest except in what they could squeeze out of it. This is two countries that have far far more in common than they do apart. Not one country being consistently screwed by the other; the Empire and the Union was fantastic for Scotland, as the article states.
So the argument here is - are the Scots so different from the rest of the UK that they need to be ruled separately? To a greater degree than now that is; they already have their own parliament to set most Scottish laws.
NB: I'm pretty neutral on independence. I think it'll be a bureaucratic disaster if it happens, but equally, if it's what the Scots want then fair enough.
> That's a bit like saying that you only believe in democracy when it's your own party that wins the election, otherwise you'll take your ball and go home.
I'm going to bite the bullet and agree with you here. But the situation is worse than that: even if your chosen party won at this flavour of democracy, you should still consider taking the ball home.
400,000 Scottish people voted for the Conservative party - and yet these voters are unbelievably underrepresented or unrepresented within the Conservative government with only 1 MP and quite probably 0 again in the future (I concede that Scottish voters were overrepresented in the recent Labour era of government, although this was only slight)
The present UK government has no commitment to Scotland and limited reason to represent Scotland's interests, and that's likely to continue to be the case in future governments. It's not healthy or sustainable for Scotland.
Why wouldn't you choose self-rule over being locked out of government?
I think part of the problem lies in the question "Where does it end?" Not just UK/England, even within Scotland there are multiple different factions. Once you've set the principle that it's ok to divide a country because you don't think you're being represented by the current party, where does it stop? In 10 years time we might be hearing calls for Islay or the Highlands to separate from the rest of Scotland for example. Or Cornwall from England...
So to my mind, wouldn't it be better to work at improving Scotland from within the UK rather than just abandoning both it and the democratic principle?
For example, instead of voting SNP, Labour or Conservative - vote Scottish Coalition. If the Scot MPs had been a united block, independent of the major UK parties, they could have easily taken the junior party position in the current coalition. They would also have had enough seats to do the same to the previous Labour government. Then you'd see some real change, without the all the potential downsides that independence could bring.
It's a third solution that nobody even seems to be mentioning or even trying. It seems to me anyway, that people have just given up as soon as the Conservatives got in. Will there still be this same sentiment after the next election when Labour probably get back in power? Or is it just a protest vote against the Conservatives? In which case, isn't independence a seriously drastic measure that's nigh on irreversible and has a large number of potential downsides?
PS: My personal favourite idea for the future of the union is actually devo-max (not independence) for every region big and small, with the Lords being replaced by a regionally elected House with longer terms. But if you want to work within the current system, a Scot Coalition is the way I'd go.
I use LibreOffice in an environment where almost every other user uses Microsoft Office tools. I've had difficulty with some documents in the docx format. Most of the documents will turn out to be ok but when certain types of formatting are included problems start to appear.
Most of the problems come from, I think, unnecessary features. For example a footer for the author's name on each page.
"They left work and played volleyball and worked on their tuner car and went to family events and so on. They learned exactly what was specifically necessary for their job today and tomorrow. Never beyond.
Most of them are (if not all...I can't think of a single one who isn't) still developers. Few have made any great impact, and most have had the "people get hired in as my boss" experience a number of times.
But they're still in the industry, doing a job, getting paycheck, and supporting a living.
Our industry is rather unique in that way that it's a 24/7 job for some, even at the lowest tiers.
Commented code is easy and available. Trying to search through git history for a comment that maybe contains this word, or maybe that word is a lot more difficult.
GitHub provides computing resources, for free, to attract users. This is just one of the challenges of that business model. If this is intolerable for GitHub then it's up to them to find a strategy to counter it.
We don't need to ask the government to punish everyone participating in cryptocurrency.