Notices by jesse squires (jsq@mastodon.social), page 2

TFW when you submit a job posting for a founder

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

"We are looking for a Founder for our startup…”

Surely there is a mediocre, incompetent white man somewhere who can step up to this challenge.

the perfect mechanical keyboard doesn’t exist—oh…

It’s such a disappointment to me that this is the lifecycle for most software:

1. It’s really good and you love it
2. Dependence
3. VC money and Growth
4. Now it sucks
5. “Locked in” with no great alternatives
6. Dream about how good it used to be

1Password quickly changed from a piece of software that I loved to one that brings me constant frustration.

However, the level of effort to migrate to something else is so high for me. And other solutions (like Apple’s built-in password management) don’t cover all the functionality I need, anyway.

this is so funny. and what anyone could have predicted.

only someone as clueless and out-of-touch as zuck would think people are interested in “genuine connection” mediated by a multi-billion dollar corporation whose business model is selling your data to advertisers

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66913551

the only GPT I’m interested in

“Instagram Threads” vs Mastodon.

Lol. Yeah can’t wait to use that.

@inthehands @NeoNacho yeah and I agree.

My issue is that both “final” and “open” exist and now “public” has 2 meanings depending on context.

I think classes should have just been final by default, obviating the need for the keyword. Then you opt-in to subclassing with “open”

@NeoNacho no, this would have to be somehow “magically restricted” for usage only in package contexts, just like how you can’t do @testable outside of a testing target

@NeoNacho I was going to say make things private that you don’t want visible. But I can see how that might not always work.

Still, I feel like the extra access modifiers are just compensating for edge cases in what’s ultimately a developer’s shitty design. Like, we don’t need `open` when we have `public final`

Instead of a new access modifier, I would have preferred:

“@Package import MyModule”

which would work similarly to “@testable import”

https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals/0386-package-access-modifier.md

Wow did we learn nothing from “fileprivate” and “open”?

I can’t believe we are making access modifiers even more complicated.

https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals/0386-package-access-modifier.md

@NeoNacho @Javi why did they even need to make swift. should have just used AppleScript

This helpful property wrapper snuck into iOS 16.4.

Use this instead of implicitly unwrapping IBOutlets. Much nicer!

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/uiviewcontroller/viewloading