> I struggle to find a use case where this would optimize good code. I can think of plenty of bad code usecases, but are we really optimizing for bad code?
The most common such usage in modern web programming is storing and retrieving a map of HTTP headers, parsed query parameters, or deserialized POST bodies. Every single web app, which arguably is most apps, would take advantage of this.
I dont have the profiling data for this, so this is pure theoretical speculation. At the time you're shoving http headers, which is dynamic data that will have to be read at runtime, into a heap allocated datastructures inside the request handling. It kinda feel like doing a little xor on your characters is a trivial computation.
I don't envision this making any meaningful difference to those HTTP handlers, because they were written without regard for perfomance in the first place.
Carter is considered by many to be the greatest president ever. Besides the numerous accomplishments listed https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/30/jimmy-... I give him credit for two of Reagan's greatest legacies -- deregulation and beating inflation.
Carter deregulated government far more than Reagan did, and he was the one that appointed Volcker and took the political hit for the pain Volcker caused in taming inflation.
> Carter is considered by many to be the greatest president ever.
Certainly, I've frequently encountered the idea that he was the greatest ex-President ever, but hardly ever (anywhere on the political spectrum) that he was the greatest President ever.
History has come around a lot and Carter has been shown to have been a man ahead of his time. You are right that for many decades after his term he was not viewed favorably.
I like to think if we had heeded the points in the "malaise" speech things would be very different today, but we as a country really liked the "buy now pay later" Reagan plan.
Bush invaded Panama in 1989, and imprisoned its president, so technically he gave away your favorite canal. Besides it's called Panama Canal and not American Canal for a reason - perhaps it never belonged to us.
Every president since Carter has talked a tough foreign policy but then either wisely paid the enemy off (Bush's Iran-Contra arms deal, Obama's planeload of cash), or stupidly started new wars which have bankrupted our treasury.
And most of America would gladly trade out Trump, Vance and the current crop of idiots in favor of Jimmy Carter or Bush the Lesser any day of the week.
That's how far the steward class of this nation has fallen.
> And most of America would gladly trade out Trump, Vance and the current crop of idiots in favor of Jimmy Carter or Bush the Lesser any day of the week.
I doubt that. In the 2024 election he won the electoral college handily and also won the popular vote. Kind of hard to argue he wasn’t America’s choice.
He was under 1% of the popular vote for 2024, so not handedly, he didn't even get close the previous two times. If we didn't have DEI for red states, aks electoral college he would have never been president. Only 25ish% of Americans voted for him this last time so what are you getting at? Unless he goes full dictator, I imagine Republicans are in trouble once their daddy is gone.
That 25% turns out to over 77 million people. Reducing voting results to percentages is a bit silly in my opinion. We both major parties, including minority parties, are composed of autonomous individuals with individual worldviews that are shaped by their unique life experiences that are capable of sharing their ideas with others while simultaneously consuming new ideas, including those from faceless actors who may have a vested interest in seeing a particular group rise to power, then act on them.
I have yet to see either major party present some message where some level of respect is required to even acknowledge that someone thinks differently than another, irrespective of the validity of their ideas, even if it’s completely illogical. The mainstream discourse I read typically descends into insults, which doesn’t help anything.
However, I feel we’re past a point in which this is even possible given the polarization of viewpoints. That snowball has been rolling for over two decades it seems.
>... and also won the popular vote. Kind of hard to argue he wasn’t America’s choice.
I guess the smartass ("teeeeechnically") way to argue against that is that for the popular vote Harris/Walz won 48.34%, Trump/Vance won 48.81%, and "other" candidates got 1.85%, for a total of 50.19% to Trump/Vance's 48.81%.
And that's not even counting the people who didn't vote. Most of whom have definitely had enough of Trump at this point.
Sometimes I think the political types and the elites don't realize how big of a minority they represent because they live in echo chambers that always tell them what they want to hear.
Maybe the Democrats should have presented a cohesive and attractive proposition to them? It's not like they didn't just have four years to build and enact one and then campaign on it instead of chasing the donor class for the nth time!
> Sometimes I think the political types and the elites don't realize how big of a minority they represent because they live in echo chambers that always tell them what they want to hear.
Coming to that conclusion yet not realizing that it applies perfectly to your own negative opinion of President Trump is pretty funny.
I get reminded, with my votes for independent parties, of how big a minority I represent in this nation literally every election. The difference between you and I is that I know I'm in the minority. Conservative and liberal voters feel they are in the majority. You're actually shocked that so many people are vehemently opposed to your policies. You genuinely believe the entire world believes in the policies you believe in because, surprise, surprise, everyone in your world does believe in those policies.
In other words, your "echo chamber" has fooled you.
That is what's dangerous. Getting taken in by your own propaganda. In the military back in the day they called it Incestuous Amplification.
Whatever. Not worth trying to explain. Just try to do yourself a favor and remember that the purpose of your propaganda is to fool the enemy, not yourself.
I’m not shocked that about half the country doesn’t agree. I just find it funny that that half of the country does not realize that the other half of the country is still half of a country.
Let's do the math, the population of the US is roughly 340M, Trump got 77M votes in 2024. That is 22.65% of Americans. So nowhere near half, not even a full quarter. Approx 174M are eligible to vote, so not even close to being half because more than half of the population doesn't, won't or can't vote.
If you're going to ascribe intentions to the non-voting public, then sure you can come up with whatever stats you'd like. I don't see how any of that is meaningful. You're just taking your own personal biases and echo chamber, and assuming that the entire non-voting public shares your views.
The only hard facts we have are the actual votes that were cast. And of those he came out on top of in both the electoral college and the popular vote. Any other interpretation is an attempt to weasel out of those undeniable truths.
> This is quite sad. PBS and NPR were jewels of the American system. The right-wing has latched on to the message that all public-funded media that isn't right-wing-biased is _bad_ and are trying to kill it everywhere.
It's pretty hard to argue that PBS and NPR do not have a left wing bias. The closest thing they'd have to a conservative voice would be bringing in a token anti-Trump (generally former) Republican.
NPR's legal affairs correspondent was close friends with Justice Ginsburg. The latter even officiated Totenberg's wedding. Do you really think she could give an unbiased report on anything involving the court? Get real... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Totenberg#Conflicts_of_in...
Real question is, why are we subsidizing it all?
If the masses want to consume left wing dribble, let them fund it themselves. The right already does that for conservative talk radio. Let the market decide.
PBS would always make mention of support from, 'Viewers like you". When in reality it was from "Tax payers of which 50+% likely do not agree with funding this content".
> PBS would always make mention of support from, 'Viewers like you". When in reality it was from "Tax payers of which 50+% likely do not agree with funding this content".
'Viewers like you' send in donations that public broadcasting stations use to purchase rights to broadcast NPR/PBS programming or programming from whatever other sources they want. The CPB doesn't dictate what the stations can broadcast they provide resources so that they can broadcast. The money they get from the CPB usually goes to cover operational costs, which donations may not cover, especially in rural areas.
This exists already. You can have cookies at higher level of the same ___domain. So foo.example.com and bar.example.com can share cookies at example.com. You can also use CORS to interact with a truly third party site. None of these require third party cookies.
A use case this doesn't address is embedding across two completely different domains, which is pretty common in the education space with LMS platforms like Canvas (https://www.instructure.com/canvas) embedding other tools for things like quizzes, textbooks, or grading. I ended up in a Chrome trial that disabled third-party cookies which broke a lot of these embeds because they can no longer set identity cookies that they rely on from within their iframe.
As nwalters also points out, this isn't the same at all. System A and System A' both from Source Α are not the same as System A (Source Α) and System B (Source Β).
Which you know, because you say "you can also use CORS to interact with a truly third party site". But now, I invite you to go the rest of the way - what if the third party site isn't Project Gutenburg but `goodreads.com/my-reading-lists`? That is, what if the information that you want to pull into System A from System B should only be available to you and not to anyone on the net?
BINGO! The issue here of course is that now instead of _two_ components (Front End A and Embed B) you now have four (the back ends must communicate and if A didn't need a back end ... well, now it does).
Now, if you meant "Use OAuth2 in the browser", that's just the original case (you can't authorize if you can't authenticate and it's the ambient authentication that's being stripped when you eliminate third party cookies).
> Amazon appears to be responding to the wishes of the President out of fealty or fear.
Ah yes. When a company does something at the ask of a Democratic administration it’s an act of valor or bravery. When they do it at the ask of a Republican one, it’s fear or fealty.
In reality it’s neither. It’s always just business.
Before you wave this off as a “both sides are just as bad” issue, consider that the reason Amazon started down the path of displaying tariffs is likely due to a long-standing company value of putting the customer first. It makes sense that, as customers, we would want to see the impact of tariffs on our purchasing decisions. We would also want to see how much the sales tax is and how much the shipping cost is.
The problem for the Administration, however, is that they’ve been telling the American people the tariffs are not a tax on consumers, but rather a tax on foreign countries. This is a lie.
So we have a situation where the administration is intimidating Amazon into going against its own values so that it doesn’t expose the lie the Administration is still telling the American people.
I agree with you that Amazon‘s decision to bend to the administrations demand is just business. There are millions of dollars in military cloud infrastructure contracts that could be rescinded as retribution. And we see that the justice department is used by the president in ways that are far outside the norm.
But do you believe this administration is acting like any we’ve seen in living memory?
> Before you wave this off as a “both sides are just as bad” issue, consider that the reason Amazon started down the path of displaying tariffs is likely due to a long-standing company value of putting the customer first. It makes sense that, as customers, we would want to see the impact of tariffs on our purchasing decisions. We would also want to see how much the sales tax is and how much the shipping cost is.
If they actually cared what consumers think, at some point over the past 35 years they would have added country of origin to product pages. Much simpler and higher impact. Does not require any recalculations or interpretations of local profit margin vs import value. Yet they've explicitly chosen never to add it.
Is that in the interests of the consumer?
> The problem for the Administration, however, is that they’ve been telling the American people the tariffs are not a tax on consumers, but rather a tax on foreign countries. This is a lie.
It is a tax on foreign countries. Some portion of it gets passed on to consumers who chose to purchase imported products. But it's not 100% of the tariff amount. And if there is local competition for the good, it may be 0% of the amount. Unless you're doing direct China to consumer sales (i.e. Temu style), you're not going to be able to come up with a perfect figure for these things either.
> So we have a situation where the administration is intimidating Amazon into going against its own values so that it doesn’t expose the lie the Administration is still telling the American people.
Ha! I agree that we have an administration that is leveraging the bully pulpit quite effectively. I see no change in Amazon's values here. They value money.
> I agree with you that Amazon‘s decision to bend to the administrations demand is just business. There are millions of dollars in military cloud infrastructure contracts that could be rescinded as retribution. And we see that the justice department is used by the president in ways that are far outside the norm.
> But do you believe this administration is acting like any we’ve seen in living memory?
No, I think they're effectively using the tools at their disposal to bring about the change that was promised during the years leading up to the 2024 election. None of this is a shock to anybody that was paying attention. And honestly none of this, at least so far, is particularly out of the norm for what's possible with executive authority. The speed of change is likely a bit much for the faint-hearted, but it's not unexpected either. The man ran on a platform of restructuring trade and 145% tarriffs on China is one piece of that puzzle.
The company said they were going to do something, they got threatened by the current administration, and then the company reversed course.
Please name a single comparable situation in the last 20 years where the Democratic president was the one threatening a company and the company reversed course.
For years Amazon has refused to display a consistent “Made in ____” label on product pages. They also will not let you filter on (or exclude) country of origin.
They’re free to do whatever they want, but it’s hardly some conspiracy theory. It’s just business. That includes deciding to or deciding not to show tariff impact on prices.
Wouldn’t this type of concentration happen directly as a result of any irrigation system? If you keep transferring water to the same land, anything that doesn’t get absorbed by plant matter and picked or evaporate would stay in the soil. So without some other process to leech the metals, it’d keep building up. Main determinant would be the baseline rate of the source water.
Why wouldn't they accumulate by natural processes exactly the same?
When you look at the ice cores, the "emissions" were higher just before the last glacial maximum.
The only reason why the metals weren't there 5000 years ago was that the soils had gotten recently stripped. The whole concept was invented by insane people.
When there's a natural process that consistently brings groundwater into a place where it evaporates you do see exactly this. Flood plains, salt flats, vernal pools, dry lake beds etc.
reply