Taskmistress** thank you very much 💅

It’s like the difference between wandering over to your local coffee shop, vs. popping in.

https://ooni.org/blog/

OONI monitors internet censorship and other forms of network interference, especially by state actors, worldwide. It’s an important contributor to digital rights and freedoms IMO, and you can run their client in the background to contribute non-personal data on pretty much any device.

How is your network handling telemetry shenanigans?

No, no, you’re thinking of a manifold. A manosphere is an orb that keeps track of how much spellcasting energy you have left, next to your healthsphere.

Art 👌

When they send over these time travelers, they’re not sending their best…

Lol why is Aqua Net hairspray specifically the thing that takes them down? Like other brands of hairspray don’t work? Spray paint or Elmer’s glue or maple syrup aren’t effective? You can’t just throw a bedsheet over them or hit them with a crowbar?

Also MMA doesn’t have anything to do with being staged.

Lol I went through the exact same process.

Wow edgy.

Good bot!

Well… The circumstances were that he was asked to whip up a little scripting language, that felt a little like Java and a little like Scheme, which could be used to add simple manipulations and interactions to web pages. Specifically to web pages. Not webservers, mobile apps, databases, banking systems, physics simulations, robotics… Only web pages. And nobody had even conceived yet of something like Google Sheets-- It was simple HTML forms and DOM manipulation.

IMO in that context, it makes alot of sense. I think it was probably still the wrong decision-- definitely with the benefit of hindsight, and quite possibly even at the time, even in that narrow context. Way more trouble than it’s worth.

But it’s beneficial to know that there was a principled (if misguided) reason behind it, that ties into the nature and history of the language-- It’s not simply “dude was in a hurry and not thinking.” Both are kinda true, but the former perspective helps us understand something useful, whereas the latter doesn’t get us anywhere interesting.

I mean, do you think that has more explanatory power though? The type coercion rules are actually more elaborate with == than necessary for equality checking, because it was intended as a clever convenience for working with strings. If it was really all about the short timeline, wouldn’t you just skip that and do a more straightforward equality comparison, like the algorithm that === implements?

Besides, it’s not like everything in the language was conceived and implemented in those 10 days. The language has been evolving steadily since then. I’m not even sure if the modern == comparison algorithm worked that way in the first iteration.

Personally, I find it more useful to understand the context that lets me say “that’s a quirky consequence of a sensible principle,” rather than blaming it on the “ten days” legend generically.

Most of the weirdness comes from being designed for the web, and specifically for working with forms. The value of a form field will always be a string, which is a simple and straightforward idea, but then the trouble showed up when we tried to make it more convenient to work that way.

It’s actually the other way around. == has to perform type coercions as part of its equality algorithm, whereas === does not, so == has more steps.

This is the Lemmiest possible reaction.

Damn that was an awesome watch. Came for the meme, stayed for the 40 minute documentary.

Lol dammit, I knew that asking about a term that I hadn’t heard before would out me as completely illiterate. Caught me 😏

Anyway I dug a little more and made an edit above, if you’re interested.

I did not know that. I believe you, but that seems like a pretty strange word to use. I couldn’t find any references to it online, either… I wonder if it’s colloquial.

EDIT: I did manage to find some references to the phrase with a little more digging. I wasn’t getting far with “anger” or “in anger,” but the phrase “fire in anger” started leading to some interesting results.

Dictionaries - MW and Dictionary.com don’t contain the phrase “fire in anger” or “in anger,” and their entries for “anger” don’t support this usage. Oxford has an entry for “in anger,” which just means “when angry.”

Cambridge Dictionary’s entry for “anger” doesn’t support this use either, but it does contain the phrase “in anger” per se, which notes that the phrase is a) primarily in UK English, and b) is considered an idiom… i.e. not an ordinary use of the word “anger.” Interestingly, it doesn’t mention the military context, and uses examples (mostly) unrelated to warfighting.

Wiktionary contains “fire in anger” (but not “in anger”). It’s described as a military idiom consistent with the usage in OP’s article. It doesn’t suggest usage outside of that context.

Etymology - I can’t find any compelling etymology of “fire in anger” or Cambridge’s idiomatic sense of “in anger,” and the etymology of the word “anger” itself (“grief, sorrow,” cognate with words in other languages for “regret”) doesn’t really help. I have my guesses, but who knows?

Conclusion - It seems to be chiefly British, largely but not exclusively used in a military context, and it’s not so ubiquitous as to be represented in most dictionaries. Definitely exists as a phrase though, and perhaps in some circles, it’s very common. TIL.