> The only other use case is lots of truly concurrent io within one request/response cycle. But again that is unusual, most apis have low single digit db queries that are usually dependent on one another removing any advantage of async.
Why just "within one cycle"? What about situation where you spend 1s in single db query and are 100ms cpu bound during request handling?
Transitional multithreaded Python web servers handle that very well and have for decades, you shouldn't need to manually handle yealding in simple cases in your application code.
The point is asyncio is to have find grade control of yealding.
Just imagine a domain from such file being recycled in 10-20 years from now and you building a webpage for the new owner - everything works as expected on dev, stage, test etc - but not on prod when deployed...
"In the absence of an adequacy decision pursuant to Article 45(3), or of appropriate safeguards pursuant to Article 46, including binding corporate rules, a transfer or a set of transfers of personal data to a third country or an international organisation shall take place only on one of the following conditions:
a. the data subject has explicitly consented to the proposed transfer, after having been informed of the possible risks of such transfers for the data subject due to the absence of an adequacy decision and appropriate safeguards;"
Does someone here know why does this apparently seem not to apply? Couldn't FB just ask for a consent?
It's not really about the smartphones, I think. They are just a symptom of much more fundamental behavior (which may or may not be problematic - depending on how you look at it).
All those 5-10 second breaks -- waiting for a light, waiting for an elevator... If it were not for the phone, what would you typically do? Focus on some random thought or two. Then snap out of it and carry on. The fact that now this is often not a random thought but random input from random app doesn't seem to change that much - pattern stayed the same, just now you can see it in other people from the outside, so it seems more profound.
I think you made a great observation about the 5-10 breaks but I disagree with your assessment that we're just replacing one random behavior with another.
The fact that I am "compelled" to look at my phone instead of staying with my thoughts is not an innocuous pattern. Why do I, with perfect predictability, prefer reaching for my phone rather than staying with my thoughts? And it's a fact that this compulsion to look at my phone exists even when I'm working on something important and not just when I'm standing in the elevator.
(My tone might be aggressive. I don't mean to offend, I just disagree).
Would you say that all your "interruption slots" are taken by a need to look at a phone or particular app? Aren't there still situations where you break your current focus (be it something important or just waiting in the elevator) with an actual thought not related to the phone?
I agree that position I've presented probably stands to some degree on the assumption that there still is a noticeable amount of non phone related interruptions of one's thought patterns. Otherwise my claim of equivalence would be stronger and require more arguments that I have at the moment.
From my personal experience (n=1) it's exactly the case - sometimes it's a phone, sometimes not, so that clearly directs my judgement. OTOH I find it unlikely that this is particularly atypical.
At this point it's a reflex and that's what I hate about it. I've had to catch myself mid way through the reflex, when I turn to look at the phone and then turn it on and then realizing what I've done and then turn it off. To a third person, it looks like I've just checked if there's new messages or checked for the time. I've had this reflex and caught it mid way, when having important conversations with partner, friends, colleagues etc in the last two weeks and it's embarassing.
I am of the inattentive type so I am more prone to this reflex but I am also more mindful than most who doesn't actually go through social media at all. The reflex is most likely to just check HN or Reddit. Maybe you'll be more aware and notice this reflex in other people you're in conversation with.
Confusing behavior after clicking on a company name in search results - would expect to go to some place related to the company (details? yc directory page? product page?), but what happens is some kind of search term change.
I've searched for "read" and clicked on "readme" in search results.
EDIT: Now I see what happens - clicking the first search result is behaving in such weird way - clicking results below the first one works as expected.
I remember how excited I was about a decade ago when Microsoft announced the Roslyn project, and how sad I was when switching my dev eco-system before it came out.
AOP wasn't a new concept, and code generation was available - but it was a hard task to get done, and not accessible to the general dev community.
Now, Roslyn ins't news anymore :) We have source generators in C#, and we not only have more main stream compiler plugins & annotation processor in Java and Kotlin (that spends a lot of time on their compiler API).
The same process has happened for the JavaScript ecosystem. The AST revolution has hit the frontend/JS ecosystem big-time. Tools like Babel (and derivatives like jscodeshift and recast) have democratized analysis and transformation of code bases. I urge you to play around with ASTExplorer to see how vast is the support for getting a proper AST for source-code.
Another big factor is the maturity GitHub marketplace. Today, smaller teams are able to ship production-ready apps for GitHub as the APIs have stabilized and are much documented than a few years ago.
All these together makes code-editing products much more feasible than a few years ago. It's not that AST and source editing novel ideas did not exist it's just they matured enough that you can actually build a product that targets a big enough segment of the market.
Yes, some way of remembrance somewhere came to my mind. But ultimately it felt somewhat intrusive to me and not particularly fitting the new character of the site.
> If Mexico has a treaty with China and begins stationing Chinese troops, USA certainly would have a big problem with that.
Sorry, but this is nonsense analogy. The correct one would be: China attacks Mexico against its will.
If Ukraine wanted to be part of Russia, they would do so via a referendum, just like UK left EU. The referendum would have high turnout and at least 50%+ of population would vote YES, we want to integrate with Russia. That's how things are done when there is a legitimate reason to believe that some country and its residents want such geopolitical change.
"I fail to see why it's a bigger deal than lives lost in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Tigray, Palestine, or any of the other places in recent history where there have been scores of human rights violations"
In terms of tragedy of individuals, it's not "a bigger deal". It's a bigger deal in terms of global security of the western nations and their values. And spare me condescending tone about those values not being ideal or ideally followed - if you have doubts about them then try to change them or relocate to better places - I don't know, maybe to Moscow?
" But if we're really concerned about war with a nuclear power above all else, we shouldn't be poking the bear in its backyard at all "
Wait, wouldn't that imply that EU startups can't host their infra on GCP, AWS or Azure? I'm not even talking about analytics - just about simple user email required to login would be problematic now.
Pretty much, it really sounds like Schrems II + this ruling mean that US corporations can't be involved with EU at all besides via licensing software to a completely independent EU corporation (which isn't a given either, though, since the US company could threaten withholding software updates/revoking the software license to pressure the EU corporation to hand over EU citizen data to US Law Enforcement).
Why just "within one cycle"? What about situation where you spend 1s in single db query and are 100ms cpu bound during request handling?