You can have my job I guess, I'm not going to sit at a prompt all day being a manager for a computer. It's not an appeal to tradition, I genuinely enjoy programming. Keep up that grindset young pup!
You mean e2e from mobile app? Because they would have to be able to trigger those failure situations from all layers of microservices for which they have no control over.
A better question is where do you draw the line in terms of companies supplying actors that are directly contributing to human suffering? We (America, but others as well) cut trade and enact sanctions exactly for that reason, all the time. This idea that capitalism should be entirely apolitical is farce, people only want it to be apolitical as far as they are personally comfortable.
they're building a generic tool and simply can't be responsible for how others use it
AutoDesk is undoubtedly aware of its sales with a massive coal plant, unless they are a horribly run and incredibly lucky company. Beyond that, it seems like AutoDesk has gone as far as promoting their involvement in developing the excavators, no?
No it's not. doctorhandshake wasn't even making an analogy. They were applying OP's rule (we shouldn't dictate business based on political beliefs) to a hypothetical in order to demonstrate its negative moral outcome.
Do we want hammers to be restricted to only those whose political ideologies align with ours?
Yeah, why not? If you're a hammer manufacturer, then you should absolutely concern yourself with whether or not you're dealing business with ethical consumers.
I think if you commit yourself to your ideal, you're either going to end up being complicit in some really nasty stuff, or end up drawing a very arbitrary "line" where you stop being apolitical.
> If you're a hammer manufacturer, then you should absolutely
> concern yourself with whether or not you're dealing
> business with ethical consumers.
What if their idea of ethics doesn't align with your idea of ethics? What if all left/right wing people are banned from using a tool? Or some other arbitrary internal measure of ethics? You're only willing to follow along with this line of thinking whilst it aligns with your interpretation of ethics.
> [..] you're either going to end up being complicit in some
> really nasty stuff, or end up drawing a very arbitrary
> "line" where you stop being apolitical.
Being neutral doesn't make you complicit. The moment you take action (for either good or bad purposes), then you become complicit.
Sometimes it can help to give an explanation instead of just making an opinionated statement. Saying you found it uninteresting doesn't really contribute much to a conversation.
Good point, although there was value enough in the comment. That is, one can extrapolate that just because the episode was related to the topic, that doesn't make it intrinsically interesting in and of itself — as might be implied by the original comment and link.
As someone who stopped doing React development before Context became a "thing", is it possible to ELI5 in a couple sentences why it is such an important concept?
It's important, because you don't need to care about props vs state, instead, just consume the context deep in your component tree.
One use case, is, suppose you have two independent contexts at two branches, now, if you want to share those data to 3rd branch, you just create new context with value from the first two contexts.
Contexts in React are like raw pointers in C++. There are reasons to use them, but every time you do, it should raise eyebrows, because they are finicky, complicated to reason about, and thus full of pitfalls.
Yep. That's why context should be used very very rarely or never. When I teach react, I try to make a long detour around them. I would not consider it being the most important concept. Its only a side effect model.
IMO, context does a lot to remove the value of MobX from React applications. Not necessarily Redux; Redux gives you some additional stuff, particularly around state tracking and rewinding. But I haven't seen a MobX project where a judiciously used context doesn't solve the same problem within the React-specific ecosystem.
The value of mobx is that you implicitly link each component to its data dependencies by dereferencing arbitrary paths into your storage objects in the render() function so that the component rerenders only when data at those paths change.
Does the Context achieve this as well? From a quick search, the Context seems to force rerender of any consumer on any change.
React Context is essentially scoped global props (the scope is some subtree of the overall component tree; the props are global to that subtree, any component in the subtree can elect to consume them). Why it's an important concept is that it keeps you from needing to pass props down the tree from each component to its children. This is important because often times those intermediate components don't have any concern with the stuff being passed down, so they shouldn't be concerned with data that doesn't matter to them.
Another way of passing around ~global stuff is Redux, which many people find cumbersome and difficult to understand. And by "many people" I mean me.
