Another good resource is The Memory Book[0]. It covers a few different systems that cover different scenarios, such as lists, like in the article, names and numbers. It uses techniques like the article, but also expands on them in interesting ways. If you put the practice time in, it does work!
A cat is like a mirror. You get what you put in to a cat, most of the times. Treat it with love and respect, it will return it. Treat it like an annoyance, it will treat you the same way!
Ember.js seems to check off a lot of those boxes, if you are willing to use a complete solution and not do the 'pick and choose' method of react and friends. While it has lost popularity in the last few years, it has been moving forward technically. It has become leaner and meaner.
Really learning the "Ember Way" to do things can reduce some of the friction the author mentions.
Ember Data can allow you to talk to multiple api backends (differing schemas) while presenting the same model to your UI. If you use the default JsonApi[0] based backend, you get a lot of things for free: powerful filtering, side loading data (relationships), consistent error handling. Sometimes it can be chatty, but that's a spot where HTTP2 can help.
Use ember-concurrency add-on and you have a nice way to manage your requests, things like de-bouncing, handling loading spinners, etc.
I'm saddened to see that almost a decade after Ember's release, the front-end world still insists rolling their own (terrible) reimplementation of it.
I would've expected that a decade later we would've settled on an Ember-like framework for the front-end and moved beyond constructing URLs and parsing JSON responses manually but apparently not.
As someone who's not a front-end developer, but who works near them and sees the (React) code they produce and their general productivity (or lack thereof), what's so bad about it?
To me as a backend developer just reading Ember's docs, it seems like Ember provides most of the conveniences I take for granted in a backend web framework such as Django, Rails or Laravel.
On the other hand, the front-end code I see from the people I work with seems to have no standard for structure (every project has its own), reinvents the wheel all the time (using Axios and building the URLs manually with string concatenation for example), etc. Most of the stuff they do (and redo) from scratch seems like something that would be handled by Ember to begin with.
So what's so bad? I feel like (as an outsider - feel free to prove me wrong) Ember is fine for most purposes, and edge-cases where React or alternative approaches do provide a benefit can be used ad-hoc without having to use it for your entire application.
Ember does indeed include a lot, and it’s all designed to work nicely together. I also develop backend much more than front end, but knowing that we just are using the primary Ember way of doing something reduces the number of decision one has to make. And it should allow other Ember devs to hop into your software more easily due to its opinionated nature.
I thought Sails.js or something like it would take the JS scene by storm, and React would move into more of a specialty application spot, but instead everyone decided they were special.
Ember is the closest to what I thought JS development should have been like, and I really appreciate what they’ve built. RedwoodJS seems promising too but we’ll see.
I was just talking with someone earlier today about how I sometimes wonder if we traded off “performance” (heavy air quotes intended) for developer productivity too quickly. Ember solves a lot of the big problems of modern web dev and data handling like this blog post points out, and when I think back to my times working with React and wonder if that trade off was really worth it.
Do you watch CNN? For about 2 years they had cnn playing on a tv near the break room, so as I refilled my water bottle, I got to see what cnn thought was the most important (Trump) news.
They spent a week on how much diet soda he drank. They had experts on saying why it could cause mental problems and that they should use the 25th on him.
They spent several days when he had 2 scoops of ice cream at a White House dinner, while his guests only got one scoop. I wish I was joking about this, but I am not. I sometimes wonder what Wolf Blitzer thinks as he’s commenting on some of these stories. Such a name, wasted.
Those are the two most comical, but the scary thing is all news is biased. Two sides of the same coin. If you don’t think so, I suggest you search out other sources. Why wouldn’t they be biased? News today is about making money, and cnn and others cashed in on the hate for trump.
I too remember the uproar of Obama wearing a tan suit. Or his mustard on a burger faux pas. And the weeklong intervention into the lack of an American flag on his lapel.
This is why I say both sides hide skeletons in their closet.
There's stupid reporting and there's malicious one. Yeah, nobody can stop them from doing commentary on icecream. But also that's not the issue here, is it?
This was during the first Trump is crazy, must remove him using the 25th phase. It wasn't just commentary, as this seemed to necessitate multiple days of coverage. I would say it falls closer to the malicious category because they have their agenda, like Fox news does too.
Every year I need to convince my wife that we need more Christmas triangles. We do through in the occasional square, but with enough triangles we can render anything!
I want to live in a country where we accept the results of a democratic process instead of spreading conspiracy theories, and yes, that goes for the Russia collusion conspiracy theories and the general "we're going to burn this mf-er to the ground if the election doesn't go our way" sentiments as well.
The reasoning on the demand to stop vote counts was to delay until they could get legal observers in to validate the process, not a bid to stop the entire process altogether.
That's not true. Regrettably we have the nationally televised words of the president on the matter:
This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. We did win this election. So our goal now is to ensure the integrity for the good of this nation. This is a very big moment. This is a major fraud in our nation. We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we’ll be going to the US Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at four o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. Okay? It’s a very sad moment. To me this is a very sad moment and we will win this. And as far as I’m concerned, we already have won it.
So, so often people only hear what they want to hear. From what we've witnessed over recent times, such thinking is so prevalent that it has to be a part of the human condition.
There were already Republican observers in NV (as per state law) and in PA, including Philadelphia. The argument lawyers are making in Philadelphia is basically incoherent. See the excerpts from the court transcript for PA case.
100% not true. Legal observers were in all places, and Trumps lawyers had to admit it in court when they said a ‘non-zero’ number were present. Most counting places even live streamed the count.
I think this is probably one of the most secure elections ever executed.
cult of personality, attacking the press, denying everything, attacking the legitimacy of our voting system, creating division by refusing to unify people, shouting "law & order" to position himself as the only solution against chaos, inciting young supporters to push his agenda with more violence (akin to hitler youth), etc.
Nearly all of the press and social media companies worked together to fight and censor him and he’s the authoritarian one for calling them out on it?
By creating division you mean sending in troops to end riots that were burning down businesses, beating people, and spreading the virus all in the name of dubious claims of police brutality?
The rioters caused real violence that really happened. What did Trump’s supporters do that is violent on that level?
Trump talks like an authoritarian, but his actual actions have been mainly to reduce the power of a central government, like appointing federalist judges, dismantling federal departments, etc. So the opposite of what an authoritarian would do.
>So the opposite of what an authoritarian would do.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that's not entirely right.
Authoritarians aim to centralize power to themselves. By removing other sources of power, their power grows. An authoritarian's ultimate goal in the US is to remove all checks and balances they can.
In comparison a libertarian aims to remove non-centeral government, like laws that effect small towns, schools and police forces in small towns, and so on, though each libertarian voter aims to remove different things, so not to mislead: Not all libertarians want to remove police, or schools, or roads, or whatever else. What you will not hear is a libertarian wanting to remove congress or another form of checks and balance.
That's a good point. Removing centralized laws so there is more autonomy for individual states is one thing, which is not removing checks and balances. I overlooked that on the libertarian part of the comment.
Unfortunately, Trump did not go around removing centralized laws, or any I know of at least. Everything he did has more to do with a power grab as best I can tell.
This is an interesting point, but he's also done and said a number of things that indicate a level of comfort with his supporters committing violence that is entirely inappropriate for a leader of a democracy, and suggests that he wants a paramilitary loyal to him. Those are exactly the actions of an authoritarian. "Stand back and stand by"
There's also been a focus on personal loyalty in high office that is also unseemly in a democracy, and has caused problems for the USA in the past too.
I suspect that his choosing of those judges was a combination of him listening to his handlers when they (rightfully) told him big portion of his base was only in it for the judges combined with the assumed belief on Trumps part that any judges he appointed to show him loyalty in any legal situation (they won't).
The pandemic, if anything, has proved the "authoritarian" diagnosis to be false. Authoritarians love to have an excuse to lock everyone up in their homes and decide from on high which businesses will be allowed to operate. Trump OTOH was like "math is tough; let the states handle it!"
I think that's oversimplifying. The fact that Trump is not a full-blown authoritarian, or is bad at it, is compatible with his expression of a number of authoritarian values.
This is true, but it emphasizes the difference between marketing and reality. Trump's evocation of authoritarian imagery has been uncorrelated with genuine threats of increased authoritarianism in USA. These threats do exist, but focusing attention on Trump has been a distraction from genuinely opposing them.
One particularly scary one is 60 minutes recorded footage of rally of Trump supporters, where many of them on their Trump flags had fascist symbolism. This spiked a fear of fascism growing in America.
In response instead of addressing this growing anti-american anti-democratic minority, instead the news decided to associate anti-fascism with riots, protestors, and other scary negative fear based topics. Now the second anyone raises a concern about fascism, supporters will unconsciously turn a blind eye. I'm surprised such word smithing like that works, and frankly I'm scared it does work. I'm terrified that different conservative groups rallied behind not only fascist movements, but invented a boogyman term for it like antifa as a way to make the topic of fascism partisan and questionable. If that's not anti-democratic and unamerican I don't know what is.
I think the interregnum period will be chocked full of rightwingers lashing out at the country and people in general. People that know Trump supporters know that there was a lot of identity wrapped up in his presidency, and see it cut down to one term is going to set them off.
>America is extremely divided, and I'm not sure that it's going to recover from this
Sadly without re-regulating the news it isn't, or some large trauma that brings the entire country temporarily together.
In the US we historically had similar problems, so something called the fairness doctrine was created. It was a law that required news give equal airtime for opposing views. This way no matter where you got your news you'd get the full truth, not half truths as the current American populous is getting.
Pretty open-ended question! I bought an Osprey Flapjack Pack [0] in a rare impulse buy while I was at an event that happened to be selling them. I didn't know anything about them, except it seemed pretty sturdy, comfortable and I was in the market for a new backpack. That was in 2015, and it still looks new. I like that it has an orange lining inside, which makes it really easy to find things.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Memory-Book-Classic-Improving-School/...