231–236 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can confidently state that I have never sighted a lone heeby-jeeby in the wild. Heebie-jeebies are best thought of as an affliction, like hives or bedbugs, characterized by shuddering and head-ducking. My guess is it started as a euphemism for hebephrenia, an obsolete affliction associated with youthful anxiety.
Seconded. Heebie-jeebies are uncountable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seconded. Heebie-jeebies are uncountable.
I'll go with the consensus opinion, then. "Heebie-jeebies" it is :)
No saying whether that is really where the New Evil Empire got its name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a reason for Debian to exists. Licenses cannot be reviewed automatically in a reliable way. Debian developers review the licenses and store them in a machine-parsable file.
Didn't Debian push a stable security update for Ghostscript that changed the license over to AGPL some time ago?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>To put something in the "public domain", you need to make a statement of such. In other words, a licence. You could just say "I put this in the public domain" but it may not provide the certainty that bigcorps like. CC0 is a way of saying this in bigcorp-friendly language. It's more than that - it's impossible to place things in to the public domain in many juristictions - like the UK. (This is because copyright is…
You can abandon property to public ownership (land, cars, anything you leave in the street in England & Wales: it gets sold and proceeds go to the Exchequer or Police) so your justification at the end doesn't sway me. Moreover, Google have been allowed to assume ownership of intellectual property (content of books). The moral rights on those properties have been effectively cancelled.
Sure, bona vacantia is A Thing - but your comment spells it out. The copyright gets _sold_ by the state to whoever wants to buy it.
That is not the same thing as public domain - the new owner can enforce their monopoly rights over the works which can screw over anybody depending on the work being "in the public domain".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not using TS means leaving a lot of useful tools on the floor. The ECMAScript standardization is process is invaluable, after all TS builds upon it. But TS provides a saner subset (and adds a very productive type system), without that I wouldn't touch "modern" JS even with a stick.
What do you mean with TS provides a subset of JS? TS is actually a superset of JS. Quoting the TypeScript website: > TypeScript is a typed superset of JavaScript that compiles to plain JavaScript. https://www.typescriptlang.org/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean with TS provides a subset of JS? TS is actually a superset of JS. Quoting the TypeScript website: > TypeScript is a typed superset of JavaScript that compiles to plain JavaScript. https://www.typescriptlang.org/
JS the good parts + types.
There is not a single feature from JavaScript that TypeScript removes.