It shouldn’t be
!important— that reads to engineers as “not important”. We should have picked another way to write this.
Maybe @important. Alternatively with custom values. And allow it to be applied to both rules and selectors. That would have been cool.
I know it’s bad practice to use !important anyway, but a quick way to customize specificity inline is useful for testing.
Both surgeons are bad it seems. Assuming X went first and played in the middle (the most optimal and common move), He could have won a turn early because O would have had to miss a block on O’s previous turn.
Edit: The only case where this isn’t true is if X’s most recent move was the X in the center which would mean that the center was open for every previous turn. That still doesn’t bode well for either of their abilities.
Now the worm has two ships but they can choose to double it and give it to the next person.
I know it’s anecdotal and perhaps can’t be blamed entirely on this medication, but I’ve been taking singulair since I was 12 and I dropped out of school at 17 with a 3.8+ gpa. I did three psych holds and two years of therapy and I didn’t feel better until a few years ago at age 26, which was when I was booted off my parent’s insurance and no longer able to get my prescription singulair.
I did get a high school equivalent degree and an associates degree in my early 20s, but even then it was very difficult for me to hold a job with how often I would burn out and suffer extended depressive episodes. I’m doing better now, but it was definitely a major set back socially and career-wise.
The claim wasn’t that a code refactor is always a change in public interface, but that it could constitute a new major version. I listed two examples of when a major version should be incremented, the first being a change in a public interface, the second (erroneously) was a change in a private interface which I then clarified could only apply in the case of a more substantial code refactor, because as you pointed out (and I reiterated and agreed with), private interface changes don’t necessitate breaking changes. It isn’t an exclusive requirement that a public interface has breaking changes in order for the major version to be incremented, only that there be a new major version when that interface breaks introduces breaking changes.
I had to explain userchrome thoroughly in order to demonstrate that it is a public interface and differentiate it from the gui. I assumed it wasn’t intuitive because you missed it when I provided it as an example initially and was accused of avoiding that point.
The first sentence of each paragraph addresses which point it argues other than the userchrome demonstration which follows from the prior paragraph and only addresses your userflow vs interface question in its conclusion.
You are correct about private interfaces. When I wrote that I was imagining something more significant like a code refactor, but yes, obviously, changing something like an internal function definition would not require a new major version if it doesn’t change a public interface. Similarly, implementing a bugfix or new feature wouldn’t necessarily mean that an existing public interface was broken, or that the major version should be incremented. I didn’t intend to imply that.
I am using public interfaces in my examples because the original point was how SemVer can communicate at a glance to the end user the kinds of changes that were made (compatibility-breaking, bugfix, etc.) and I had the offhand idea to also communicate when the update was released by including the date in the patch number. I am not confused about what semantic versioning is or whether it can only apply to public interfaces or libraries. If I knew it was going to start an argument, I wouldn’t have mentioned backwards compatibility; it was an offhand comment tangential to the idea I was explaining. I could have just as easily said:
“I prefer the SemVer
Major.Minor.Patchapproach so I can tell at a glance if the update is a new feature release or is just bug fixes”.
I don’t think I skipped the question about Firefox interfaces. An interface I was looking at for backwards compatibility was in the example I provided with the UserChrome interface and I provided a specific example of a third party tool using that interface, the FireFox-UI-Fix project. Admittedly, this isn’t a strong example because the UserChrome customization doesn’t expose any functions to be called and doesn’t define any kind of protocol in a traditional sense. But that doesn’t make it any less of an interface in my opinion.
The UserChromeCSS customization feature is provided to the user by Mozilla for the purpose of modifying the browser’s chrome i.e. graphical user interface (note I’m not confusing a gui with a programming interface, they just happen to be the same thing in this example). In order to make these customizations, the user must be aware of how the browser’s gui is layed out, i.e. the user must know the structure of the HTML that makes up the browser’s chrome. If the user writes a gui customization which depends on that structure for one version of the web browser but then the browser changes that HTML structure in the next update, that constitutes a breaking change. In this example the interface is defined by the chrome’s HTML itself. The CSS written in the UserChrome.css references/selects that HTML and is thus dependent on the stability of that HTML in order to produce the same effects across different versions of the web browser. Third-party tools that distribute custom UserChrome.css files should therefore expect that their customizations be compatible across minor and patch versions of the same major version release. It’s not necessarily that the major version must increment every time this gui is changed, but when the interface for customizing this gui has introduced a breaking change (which in this case is usually synonymous). I think this is what you mean when you say “userflow”. If so, then no, I don’t think “userflow” is an interface. The userflow/gui happens to be an interface in this example because of the UserChrome feature that exposes the gui to modification through its own HTML/CSS interface, the stability of which is depended upon by both users and third-party developers such as the Firefox-UI-Fix project I mentioned.
As for other Firefox interfaces which would call for a major version increment upon being changed, there is the WebExtensions API for browser extensions, and the cli arguments that you mentioned. I don’t think providing an exhaustive list supports or invalidates any point or opinion I’ve stated. The major version number is incremented if any public interface changes, it doesn’t have to be representative of a single interface exclusively. An application can provide multiple public interfaces, where a library tends to be more singularly focused (maybe this is the source of our disagreement/misunderstanding?). An incremented major version just means that there is some breaking change(s) in some interface(s). Conversely, an incremented major version number doesn’t imply that every provided interface contains a breaking change.
If it’s your opinion that SemVer is better suited to a narrow API or library where a new major version exclusively indicates a breaking change in its singular public interface. Ok. That doesn’t indicate a lack of understanding SemVer on my part, and that’s not a requirement of SemVer. There exist applications using SemVer that expose multiple interfaces.
My suggestion is in compliance with standard SemVer as far as I can tell, but yes it is frustrating when apps use versioning that looks like SemVer, but make interface changes in Minor versions and don’t really adhere to SemVer.
Yes, especially for applications, and especially for Firefox. The Major version in SemVer increases with any interface change public or private (or it’s supposed to). This is important to communicate to users who rely on any 3rd party plugins, or who need to open files created with prior versions of the software, including configuration profiles.
Using Firefox as an example, I use the Firefox UI Fix. If Firefox changes their browser userchrome/layout, this mod breaks. But it is nice that I can tell at a glance when a new Minor version or Patch version releases that it contains no changes that break this mod. Any breaking changes in these versions are bugs in Firefox.
As for higher number versioning. I’m not advocating that Firefox restarts their Major versioning number back to 0. They could skip Major versions and call the next Major version 200 for all I care. The only thing my comment advocated for was including the date in the patch version number.
I prefer the SemVer Major.Minor.Patch approach so I can tell at a glance if the update breaks compatibility or is just bug fixes. Technically the Patch part can be any number as long as it increases each update of that same Minor version, so one could write the versions as AA.BB.YYMMXX where AA is the Major version, BB is the Minor, YY is the two digit year, MM is the month, and XX is just an incrementing number.
I think this approach has the best of both systems.
Omelette du Garbage
It seems the source isn’t available anymore, but here is the know your meme page.
177013
I always remember the difference by imagining them as lines on a graph. Forward slash is the line with positive slope and backslash is the one with negative slope.
The most convenient userscript for me is this one that automatically likes YouTube videos. It’s configurable to be able to: like the video after a specified watch percentage, ignore already disliked videos, only like videos from subscribed channels, and ignore livestreams. I like it enough that I’ve made a few pull requests to fix it when YouTube changes their UI.
When I have the time, I work on an in-progress local version to implement a few new features including: (1) Support for the YouTube shorts UI. (2) An option for a notification/toast to appear when the video has been liked. (3) An option to check the watch percentage continuously (mutation observer) instead of a user-defined poll rate which sometimes misses liking very short videos in playlists. Eventually I’d like to port something like this as a YouTube ReVanced patch.
I think I had this guy’s exact issue and maybe even stumbled upon his comment in that Microsoft support forum thread. It looks very familiar, but I could have just seen the meme before.
My problem was that I needed to do this for 100+ files, so using the UI individually for each file was out of the question. The eventual solution I found was in this tutorial for adding a context menu entry that changes folder/file ownership recursively. It’s been very useful!
deleted by creator
Pink: “You could be a responsible person and be productive right now.”
Green: “🥺”
Pink: “… or we could take a nap instead.”
Green: “Yes, I’d prefer that.”
There is additional context that “do the thing” in ADHD speak usually means completing the task that has been stressing you out, but that you keep putting off and feeling guilty about. Taking a nap instead, in such cases, is more about de-stressing and forgiving yourself for another day of failing to complete the task and not about being lazy. In the comic, this conversation takes place between two characters, but in reality it’s usually an individual, internal process.
Edit: Additionally, I translated “floor time” as “nap”, but it could be any non-stressful activity, even just laying on the floor, wide awake, and staring at the ceiling.
End time zones. Instead of converting what time it is somewhere else, I’d rather convert what time dawn/mid-day/dusk is.
Had a beard. He clean shaved a couple weeks ago.