Quick request, if it's doable: would you mind making a portable version of this? We're super locked down on our machines (even as developers), and all programs that need to be installed need to be approved. Portable programs fly under the radar, so they're easier to try discreetly, then we can make an official request to get them approved or buy a license.
Edit: oh my, you also made Insomnia, that I used when Postman was on the enshittification path...
AI image generation wasn't good enough in early 2022 to generate game assets. Yeah you could probably generate pokemon-like looking stuff, but it wouldn't be usable as-is in a game.
Edit: and even today. Generate textures for blocky assets? Sure. But full pokémon models that wouldn't need a ton of rework? Nope.
It's implied that GPT-4 has so many restrictions that will not argue and just do what is asked. In the context of the joke, an unfiltered LLM will just debate you.
I've been writing TypeScript for at least 6 years now, and I couldn't go back to JavaScript. I understand the arguments of those who don't like it, but ultimately they all boil down to either "writing types is tedious" or "I know better than the compiler".
> I spend more time trying to resolve TypeScript complaints than I do adding code
Those complaints from the compiler are the main feature of any statically typed language! In TypeScript, they're here to tell you that something is potentially wrong with your code, and it might break in runtime.
"I spend more time trying to resolve [typing errors] than I do adding code" is something you'll hear from anyone that is not used to statically typed languages. _Any_ language, not just TypeScript. And it's an issue that quickly goes away by itself once you learn the language.
> Our team has lost hours on TypeScript exceptions in staging and production builds (but oddly not offline/local) where some external type was missing or incompatible, another one being that the local environment passes linting but CI doesn't, it shouldn't be so hard
That one is probably a simple configuration issue, not TypeScript's fault.
> Having to rewrite correctly and infallible JavaScript so that it was friendly enough for TypeScript to understand
This one I can get behind, but I'd put it in the same bag as the first point. I'm sometimes tempted to use things like non-null assertions (like in the example with the .filter().map()) but I'd say that 99.9% of the time the compiler is right, and it's safer to right one more line than a `!`. But you don't do it to make TypeScript happy, you do it to rule out a potential edge case, and avoid a runtime crash.
> (mind putting a publish date on these articles?)
Off-topic, but please PLEASE put the publish date on your (technical) articles. When I'm looking for documentation and open an article without a publish date, I almost always discard it immediately. I'm not going to risk wasting my time learning outdated knowledge.
The answers from SO users on that last thread show how much they lack self-awareness. Nowadays the only way I end up on SO is through a google link, I 100% consider it a read-only site.
If beauty was the only metric of attractiveness or likeability, sure. Except that incels are not celibate because they're ugly, they're celibate because they're convinced that women don't want them because of their looks. That thinking makes them entitled people with an overall terrible personality. That's why they can't get laid.
The first paragraph speaks for itself. The whole "involuntary" part of "incel" implies that your celibacy - the fact that people don't want you as a partner - is totally out of your control. Incels are the epitome of "nice guys".
I got mine 2 months ago, and had to send it for RMA this week (one of the speakers is busted).
Though I really like it, the finishes are really not great compared to a Nintendo Switch. The plastic feels cheap, the case creaks a bit, one of the triggers squeaks, the buttons clicks are super loud, and well, a speaker broke. There are also a few small software issues that are definitely not deal-breakers, but quickly add up as annoyances.
I still find it's a good device, it does what I expected it to do (sometimes even better), but for the price, I expected something a bit more robust.
I understand there's reasons the translation is incorrect, but if the very first example you're showing on the page is wrong, most people (who are fluent enough) will just roll their eyes and leave it at that. Maybe showcase an example that works?
You seem knowledgeable about TypeScript, so you certainly very well understand what people mean by "types are not available at runtime". Once your typescript is compiled to javascript, there's nothing left of your user-defined types and interfaces. Type guards are a security that is very much a workaround for the lack of types at runtime.