But generic type syntax is a feature exclusive to Typescript while typeof is a JavaScript thing. You’d never get Pie[Pie[T]] as a result from a typeof check. (Please excuse the square brackets; seems like the markdown parser here isn’t quite right and it keeps messing up the angle brackets)

Also, it’s typeof foo not typeof(foo) in js

factoid actualy just statistical error. average palestinian eats 0 pieces of bread per day. Breads Georg, who lives in cave & eats over 190,000 each hour, is an outlier adn should not have been counted

In this case it’s … Really not worth explaining anything? And it’s not like it’s an unusual tool. It’s just a pry bar.

Agree in general though

There are some cases where any must be used instead of unknown but they usually involve generic constraints and seem more like a bug than intended behavior

Ok. I admit I missed the label in the top right saying “Native Speakers (millions)”

No no, 10 base 512 lines of code

It only says that below the main title, and from the wording it’s also unclear if that’s what it’s actually intended to show or just the cutoff for a language being represented.

Like, it could be interpreted as showing L1+L2 speakers of languages with >50m L1 speakers

Looks like a voronoi treemap

This is not a standard box plot given you can clearly see many data points below what should be the min line in pretty much every category

The chunks are language families. Turkish is the only Turkic language which meets the cutoff; wikipedia says the second most spoken language in the family is Uzbek, but that only has 44 million speakers (native + second combined)

This is only showing native speakers so I feel like the title’s a bit misleading

We already have bacteria that eat plastic

It makes sense if you just think of everything as a function.

JSX can exist without React; it’s essentially just an alternative syntax for function calls.

(That is, annoyingly, handicapped in the Typescript checker)

This happens all the time. I feel like a big reason people don’t like meetings is that they tend to involve a lot of bikeshedding.

That concern is feigned, for PR.

Computers are binary, yeah? So we have to represent fractional numbers with binary, too.

In decimal, numbers past the decimal point are 10^-1, 10^-2, … etc. In binary, they’re 2^-1, 2^-2, …

2^-1 is one half, so 0.1 in binary is 0.5 in decimal. 2^-2 is one quarter. 0.11 in binary is 0.75 in decimal. And of course you’ve got 0.01 = 0.25

The problem comes when representing decimal numbers that don’t have neat binary representations. For instance, 0.1 in decimal is actually a repeating binary number: 0.0001100110011…

Fun fact: NaN is of type number

The article itself makes the connection:

As the 2024 presidential campaign ramps up, concern is quickly rising that such images might be used to spread false information.

Though, I guess shame on us for expecting better journalism these days.

The solution is … Embed a watermark when the image is generated? How will that help stop deliberate disinformation created with other tools