Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

Does anyone know of a well-sourced(!) article or site documenting common myths and assumptions about Javascript, and systematically debunking them?

Asking before I start building something like this myself, so that I don't duplicate work...

(No low-effort listicles or clickbait please, only things that really make a genuine effort at explaining *why* common beliefs are wrong) ​

Further, and as more general commentary: being "progressive" or "radical" or whatever you want to call it, isn't determined by how many social causes you are aware of. It's not a checklist.

What matters most of all is how you respond when *you* are called out on problematic behaviour, that you didn't know was problematic yet. Whether you learn from it.

And that also applies for the more obscure problems that you weren't previously aware of at all. Like this one, for example. And this probably isn't the only one either.

Also, on this topic, a hell of a lot of people on here could do with giving https://blog.aurynn.com/2015/12/16-contempt-culture a read.

I think I'm just going to stop ever talking about JS or answering anyone's questions about it on here, because the only thing I ever seem to get in return is some JS bashing for good measure.

It's clear that people haven't internalized "think about how your words affect other people" for the less obvious topics yet. I'm exhausted and very much done with this.

Like, it's abundantly clear that I'm just not welcome to talk about it here.

Apparently Brainfuck has as many WebAssembly-targeting compilers as Java does, and more than C++

Hey, a programming language that *doesn't* just use English words for its syntax: https://github.com/wa-lang/wa#example-print-prime-with-chinese-syntax

Oh en dit is dus ook gewoon op de wachtnummerbonnetjes geprint, he, niet e.o.a. obscuur account

Honestly, the "I could never go back to writing code without Copilot, it's so repetitive" is not a glowing review of Copilot, so much as it is a scathing indictment of how hard we've collectively failed at teaching and accommodating (communal) code reuse practices, also on a tooling support level

Ik kan er nog steeds niet helemaal bij dat de Instagram-account van de ziekenhuisapotheek hier, "bosschepillekesjbz" heet

(The problem with SSL/TLS specifically is that if you even *allow* plaintext or broken-SSL connections, this immediately makes *everybody* vulnerable to downgrade attacks, even if they are using a device/browser/etc. that supports a modern and safe TLS stack)

I wonder, has anyone built some sort of proxy yet to be able to access modern-TLS-using sites with old unmaintained devices?

Like, the "let's build sites so they work on all browsers" is fun and all, and is largely either unproblematic or a positive thing, but sending everyone's traffic over the internet in plaintext or over broken SSL is... extremely not it

Y'all are aware that "abolishing Section 230 would break the internet" is industry propaganda, yeah?

It's used as a defense for maintaining Section 230 exactly as it is today - distracting from the possibility of, for example, amending it to more tightly constrain when a provider is protected.

In the EU, for example, we have the "mere conduit" condition - it means that you are only protected from legal liability if you pass the content through as-is, without meddling in eg. who gets to see it, or what the content itself is.

This protects genuine ISPs and other 'neutral' service providers (and in fact encourages them to remain neutral!), while it *doesn't* protect corporations like Facebook who very clearly optimize the displayed content for their own benefit (anger -> engagement -> profit).

This isn't a *perfect* solution either (under a small handful of circumstances it can discourage moderation), but as you can see from me posting this, it hasn't broken the internet, nor e-mail, nor anything else really.

Something like this is entirely possible in the US, too. But not as long as people rabidly defend Section 230 *in its current form* by repeating the (*technically* true but implicitly misleading) claim that "abolishing it would break the internet".