I’m hopeful that mainstream ruby types takes the approach of http://sorbet.run
It works really well in practice, and there’s probably tons of perf improvements when types of objects are known.
There’s the risk that type annotations would be a cosmetic wart once type inference is improved. However, that would be mitigated if there were a mainstream rubocop/gofmt/eslint-like tools that cleanup old code.
In “Be Right Back,” a 2013 episode of the eerie, near-future drama Black Mirror,
Black Mirror Season 3 was just announced.
It’s a Science fiction/Satire series of standalone anthologies (6 episodes per season, you can watch in any order). If you’re interested in entirely non-scientific Futurology, and want to have thoughts teased from you about the psychological/social implications of technology, it’s a great TV show to watch.
Not all episodes are PG-13. In fact, some of them have very adult themes. Either way, I’d suggest starting with “The Entire History of You” -> Season 1, Episode 3.
The git add -p family is what I use all the time.
git add -p
git commit -p
git reset -p
git checkout -p
Instead of going through history, I end up thinking about each of the changes I’ve made as having a theme.
As a result, my flow looks like this, in a day-to-day:
git commit -p -v
git fetch && git rebase origin/master
git rebase -i origin/master
git reset --soft origin/master
The title is malicious, the content is a joke.
In a similar vein, running touch ./-rf is my all-time favorite to run on unattended computers.
Weird that the 21st doesn’t have the same issue.
To speculate: probably because the preceding “2” increases the likelihood that a “1” will follow it instead of an “l” or “i” in Google’s algorithm. Though if that is the case, then I don’t know why it doesn’t assume that “January” is more likely to be followed by “11th” than “llth”.
Yes, it looks like that.
I’ve always been weirded out by the value prop of hiring SEO experts.
Gaming Google search rankings by pretending to be authoritative on a topic feels wrong. If you have money to spend on hiring a SEO expert, why not spend it on becoming authoritative instead.
Gaming Google search rankings by pretending to be authoritative on a topic feels wrong.
Why? Suppose you discovered that HR departments had set up keyword filters so that “AngularJS” was accepted, but “Angular.js” was rejected. Would it “feel wrong” to adjust your resume to get through their filters?
If you have money to spend on hiring a SEO expert, why not spend it on becoming authoritative instead.
You might already be authoritative, but Google isn’t recognizing it because you haven’t performed the appropriate incantations and sacrifices. There is also the possibility that good quality content just doesn’t exist for a particular set of searches. You can use SEO to determine which searches those are, and then produce good content for them.
If you have money to spend you can do whatever you want, period. SEO is important though. How traffic is making its way to your site – via google/panda or whatever – will have a big impact on your business. I just feel like this is the kind of thing you just learn through experience, and not necessarily through study of any kind. And like the author of that article pointed out, you ultimately can’t really know, the best you can do is live on quasi-magical superstitious principles.