True, especially if you consider the line:
[15] The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
Sounds like Elon’s recent AI generated video of Trump cleansing Gaza.
And this was written before the Trump assassination attempt. Revelations 13 describes a beast healing from a fatal wound. There’s also this bit which could read like it describes a loyalist vice president who prevents economic deals with countries who don’t display loyalty to the president (i.e. wearing a hat that displays his name and number “Trump 45-47”).
[11] Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. [12] It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. [13] And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. [14] Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. [15] The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. [16] It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, [17] so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.
Edit: I see now there are updates at the bottom of the article that mention the same points I did.
Just according to kakapo. I mean kereru. I mean keikaku.
Not a film, but he was a playable character (as himself) in the “Call of the Dead” map for Call of Duty Zombies. But even as a good guy, that mode is endless survival, so he inevitability dies in the end.
Edit: I guess he technically doesn’t die if you survive long enough that the game resets at the ~70 hour ‘killscreen’.
The gibs and blood from enemies is very bright when it stains the ground; I wonder if that ties into a new gameplay mechanic somehow. I think this is also hinted at by the last scene with the psycho in the rain and giant pool of blood. It could also just be a new visual effect.
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.
This sounds like the Linux vs GNU/Linux meme.
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.
(he’s an enigma because he has a forehead-penis)
(no, he’s not just a color-swapped Knuckles the Echidna, who has a four-headed penis, it’s just a coincidence)
“Chuckles the Enigma” (OC do not steal)
Mishconsin, Winnesota, Illioniowa, Kentuckiana, Kansahoma
insult to flurries
Good thing you have your fursuit to keep you warm
It looks like a Jakobs pistol from Borderlands.
Don’t pick a house with a dog next time.
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.
Yeah, I wasn’t sure how the square brackets would behave in markdown quoteblocks. I don’t fully trust the post preview on mobile. Should be fixed now.