Your "tilting at the windmill" phrasing is interesting. I don't get the sense from your tone otherwise that you disapprove of it or think it's pointless.
This explosion of optionality types is (the most important) topic of Rich Hickey's "Maybe Not" talk. I recommend it!
The short version is: the shape of a type is inherent to the type itself, but the optionality of its members is dependent on the situation. A type system that solves this problem separates these concepts to allow for this distinction.
I _suspect_ it's possible to implement something like that in typescript but I haven't tried it myself (and I doubt it's very ergonomic).
Wonderful to see Durak mentioned. I learned it in its Vietnamese form (Tấn) and introduced it to friends in Australia where it was a big hit. We eventually settled on calling it "Dickhead" or "Dumbarse" which seems like an appropriately Australian interpretation of the source material :thinking:
From my experience, the reason CORS is hard to understand is that it's somehow inverted from the default "shape" of security in web dev.
We easily form the intuition of the client being a by-default untrusted entity, and checking whether it has the privilege of accessing this data, where the server is the arbiter of that access.
CORS is so inherently different to that, and while the information is easily available, it requires a short but careful read to grok the idea -- which a dev tunnel-visioning towards getting their application code written may not wish to slow down for.
Went looking for that article out of curiosity. For what it's worth, I think the original commenter expressed a fair opinion politely, but the "author has issues" commenter was unnecessarily unpleasant.
Neither of those should prevent you from writing how you want!
If you've got the ability to play the original, it still held up fantastically when I last played it properly (2-odd years ago).
I tried emulating it a few years before that when I didn't have any workable screen for my PS2 and that was not so good. A game that pushed the original hardware to its limit also pushed the emulator past its limit. Might be better with more powerful hardware than mine?
However, I've heard the remake is perfectly good, and surely easier to play with modern PC hardware!
I wrote a response to this, but then I realised I was responding to the claim that modern media was more derivative, rather than what you actually said, which was that modern media is more _meta_.
Can you go into that a little more? Do you have specific examples that make you sad?
The first example that comes to my mind is the show Community, which I really enjoy, and which doesn't make me sad at all.
P.S. an article I linked to in my original response was https://www.filfre.net/2025/01/the-crpg-renaissance-part-1-f... which I mentioned as it talks about a historical standout in the genre but puts it in the context of the copycats and the schlock. It's now irrelevant to my comment, but I'd like to link to it anyway.
> that foo which accepts a bar, frobnicates its internal state, and emits a mutated baz
Tangential, but that reminds of the Haskell "hoogle" tool which allows searching for functions _by type_ across a large database of libraries, even by abstract types. So you might wonder "hmm what's that function that has a type structure like `t a -> (a -> t b) -> t b`?" and it'll happily tell you that it's monad `bind`
Boy that unc/uncer looks tantalisingly close to modern German uns/unser. Wiktionary seems to have it descending from a different PIE root, n̥s vs n̥h -- I'm not at all familiar with PIE though.
A friend suggested a bottom-hinged door like that on a garbage chute, though well sealed, and as wide as the fridge, so the sides of the door don't get in the way of storing long objects in the fridge.
That's what makes me think they've simply mixed up horizontal and vertical, because you can't (conveniently) store things on top of a chest fridge, but you can store things on top of a vertical fridge. Basically I think they've got a coherent point if you swap vertical and horizontal throughout their whole comment.
They seem to have mixed up horizontal and vertical, and if they did, then my reading is that they're saying the cost of the extra floor space (and the loss of the "shelf" space on top of the fridge) when using a chest fridge makes the economics unfavourable for people in dense urban areas, even with the energy savings.
At least, I'm hoping that's what they meant. If they really meant horizontal and vertical in the way they used it then I've got no idea either.
Gorgeous photos. One point of feedback: I went to your shop to view prints, and while it was nice to see them "in situ", I couldn't see the actual images because of how they small they were in frame!
I really enjoyed your post and was surprised to see it not posted here. I guess now I can leave the comment I wasn't able to leave on lobste.rs :)
The format made for good lunchtime reading -- the care you put into making it easily readable shows. Are the illustrations actually hand-drawn? Looking forward to the next part(s) that you hinted at!
My current company uses Angular, and uses it reasonably well. Prior to working there, I'd never used Angular, so I feel well-equipped to comment on this.
We've also recently absorbed a vanilla(-ish) JS codebase largely developed by one dev which provides a point of comparison.
Angular has plenty of boilerplate and idiosyncrasy, but it being opinionated and "pattern-y" has advantages when you want devs who infrequently touch it to be able to jump in and make changes with some level of consistency.
Additionally -- and this is anecdotal, but I suspect it's a common part of working with a plain JS codebase -- tracking the flow of data through the Angular application is usually soooo much more straightforward, even when it involves navigating through many layers and files. The Angular codebase only has N types of things, and they tend to relate to each other in the same ways, and they're often quite explicit (such as explicitly defined component element names in HTML templates). In contrast the JS app has whatever it has built up with very few constraints keeping it consistent. Obviously that could be improved with discipline and structure, but reducing that requirement is one of the things a framework gets you.
I can't comment too much on React as my one experience working in a proper React codebase was in a team who were largely as clueless as me :)
frogulis.net