No, you misread

And you are absolutely correct. I've seen the DT page thanks to the linked HN submission (actually comment [1]. And incorrectly associated the DT article incorrectly today. Thank you.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47200131

I think this is a bit similar to Mojo's origin types: https://docs.modular.com/mojo/manual/values/lifetimes/#origi...

what do you verify about the bots?

some quick feedback on the user interface:

- i pressed "Amino Acids", and nothing updated below the toolbar. can't figure out what it does

- the "Tools" buttons looks like a segmented picker, but both seem to actually initiate a modal presentation

this tool seems interesting, but it would be worth polishing some of these ui quirks because my first impression was that it seems a bit broken (or confused me)!

but seems like a cool project otherwise, love people building and sharing explainers as they learn stuff!

I'd probably say we ought to use DNS.

And while we’re at it, 1) mark domains as https-only, and 2) when root domains map to a subdomain (eg www).

I might amuse you to know hat we also already have a text file as a solution for https-only sites.

If there are rate limits, or if the search space is vast, this is notably more limited (even if arguably still enumeration)

is it actually free? or are we collectively paying for it by allowing the big business to gain control of an otherwise competitive market and jack up prices

individuals are not pricing that in. coordination is needed. that's why we regulate the market

it's not a great market for consumers if we allow big business to undercut pricing and kill competition

government should help us coordinate to prevent this Nash equilibria

> undercut pricing and kill competition

Yeah but nobody minded not having to pay for web browsers, file manager, antivirus software and bunch of other stuff.

Companies have been bundling their different software products together since almost forever and while there are some disadvantages arguable this has benefited consumers overall. At least I wouldn't be too glad about having to buy separate licenses (or pay separate subscriptions) for Excel, Word and PowerPoint (or any other product bundle like Jetbrains IDEs for every language etc. etc.).

Most people would also not rather get a non-functional barebones OS whenever they get a new PC and have to chose and install all the basic apps themselves.

It's hard for me to tease apart the differences between Rye "first class context", deprecated JS "with" statement, Scala/Idris/Agda implicit arguments, and I guess also just effect systems generally?

it feels like there're all features for ergonomic dependency injection, but maybe that's a lot of programming

There are differences in the details. JS with is much less powerful than implicit arguments or effect systems. The basic concept is similar; all deal with dynamic scoping in some way.

Effect systems can change control flow (that's the point of many effects, such as exceptions) so they require capturing continuations.

Implicit arguments usually have compile-time search / composition.

Rye contexts seems like they have neither of the above, but I've only skimmed through the description.

A "with" statement can't redefine control structures in JS or any of those languages.

See SICP 4.1 definition of "eval", this is more like reifying "env" to the function being evaluated.

> When it matters?

This applies to usernames too! It's easy to phish if platforms render capital I and lowercase l the same