I am a seasoned JavaScript dev (15 years now) and I don't mind writing jQuery plugins and dealing with old ES3-5 style code bases.
I am working with an Angular project where everything is just wrong by just enough to make it totally impossible to actually fix properly without massive refactoring. We have lots of imported bits of CSS even though we are using a framework, several libraries that kinda do the same thing just squished in there. Lots of jQuery (yes in an Angular project that screw with angular animations) and generally people didn't RTFM.
The only way to make something that is somewhat reliable is to just delete it and rebuilt each module piece by piece. I don't want to fundamentally change the product. I just want something where I am not constantly fixing bugs that could have been avoided by just RTFM.
The reason nobody wants to work on code-base that isn't their own is that it is frequently either crap, or it is undocumented and partially crap, or there is fundamental problems with it that make working with it painful. I can't lay out forms easily (even though we are using a popular CSS framework) because somebody who is long gone decided to put !important all over a stylesheet and if I remove anything the whole web app breaks. I frequently fix many display problems through deleting code.
As for comments about state-management ...
Your app has a state. If you don't manage it properly it becomes a mess. State management is essential. You might think it is a trend, but it isn't. It is simply good practice because once you start using it the benefits are obvious.
The only way to get them to play nice is make it impossible for them to do otherwise. These artists all way come out of the woodwork to support some garbage laws that are used to censor the internet in one form or another or put some garbage spyware/security hole in our OS or browsers.
I am fed up of these psychopathic companies making billions for old (and mostly crap) music that should have been made public domain decades ago (especially with some of garbage Cliff Richard has produced over the years).
They don't believe that people misunderstand how it works. This is marketing and PR speak for "We are going to do this and we are going to push enough tech jargon out there that most people won't understand nor care about the difference".
After skimming that report. They talks about "whitening" names. I know for a fact that a lot of my friends from Hong Kong would have a "English" name to make it easy for English people to pronounce their names.
Also the whole "whitening" (Whatever that means) of a CV/Resume sounds like something that is completely subjective.
Sorry but the different in applications could be again explained by something else e.g. simply being able to remember the name.
Racism is claimed for every disparity now between racial groups. While I doubt that it can a factor, I doubt it is the singular cause.
There is a re-implementation of that you can find on github and compile relatively easily on Linux. It isn't great to use. It looks cool, but it totally useless.
Is that because they are black though? Without asking those people why they watched something else you are just making the assumption it was to do with their skin colour and not anything to do with the content itself.
e.g. I don't watch a lot of content with women on Youtube. Not because I have anything against women. It because the subjects I am interested in, isn't covered typically by women.
The issue is that the very concept itself is limiting and thus limits how we can interact with the computer. The concept of files and directories is a direct analogue to a filing cabinet.
The concept of how the information is stored is no different. It just the amount of data that can be stored. While storing more data that can be copied, transferred and edited easier is an improvement. The fundamental concept of the file system itself is still wedded to a concept that is probably 1000s of years old at this point and by tying us to these concepts it limits what can be done with data within those files.
3.1.4 and 3.2 were created by Hyperion Entertainment. 3.1.4 and 3.2 by the looks of it support all the 68000 series processors and these as stated in the article are more recent.
I am working with an Angular project where everything is just wrong by just enough to make it totally impossible to actually fix properly without massive refactoring. We have lots of imported bits of CSS even though we are using a framework, several libraries that kinda do the same thing just squished in there. Lots of jQuery (yes in an Angular project that screw with angular animations) and generally people didn't RTFM.
The only way to make something that is somewhat reliable is to just delete it and rebuilt each module piece by piece. I don't want to fundamentally change the product. I just want something where I am not constantly fixing bugs that could have been avoided by just RTFM.
The reason nobody wants to work on code-base that isn't their own is that it is frequently either crap, or it is undocumented and partially crap, or there is fundamental problems with it that make working with it painful. I can't lay out forms easily (even though we are using a popular CSS framework) because somebody who is long gone decided to put !important all over a stylesheet and if I remove anything the whole web app breaks. I frequently fix many display problems through deleting code.
As for comments about state-management ...
Your app has a state. If you don't manage it properly it becomes a mess. State management is essential. You might think it is a trend, but it isn't. It is simply good practice because once you start using it the benefits are obvious.