In many places, the HOA is the only entity that will do anything about bad neighbors like a dog that barks 24/7 or someone playing music all night—things that don't necessarily break city law but do affect your life, or things that do break city law but the city won't bother enforcing.
Those things should break city law though! To me, this is another of privatizing what should be the government's job, resulting in less accountability and less democratic control.
Why not have both? City law sets a baseline for the city, but that will be a one size fits all solution.
Someone who wants a place quieter than the noise level the city enforces can find a development with an HOA that sets a lower level. Someone who is particularly sensitive to smoke can find a development that bans outdoor fires on more days than the city does.
As long as an HOA is only limiting things that actually affect other people and maintaining common property, and it is legally structured in a way that prevents scope creep (or ensures that existing owners are grandfathered if new restrictions are imposed), I don't see anything inherently wrong with having an HOA.
I don’t know if HOAs are great or not, but I live in a mid-size city with a lot of more important problems than taking care of my neighbors’ unsightly home situations. I can’t realistically expect city government to handle it, and moreover different neighborhoods have different very comfort levels with that sort of thing. Moving that sort of “minor living arrangements” governance out of the big city government into the neighborhood actually works much better.
If the HOA is entirely elected by the people who live in it, it sounds as if it would be more democratic and more accountable than a town or city government. Your vote will have more power and the people elected will literally be your neighbors.
While browser cookie UI has been historically bad even for developers, I don't see how a browser's cookie UI could do what these menus do.
For example, load StackOverflow in Chrome incognito. It has buttons for "Accept all cookies", "Necessary cookies only" and a "Customize" menu that gives you checkboxes for "strictly necessary", "performance", "functionality", and "targeting cookies" all with a lot of links and explanations.
It isn't just a matter of turning off third party cookies.
I haven't used Express in ten years, but imo `async (req, res, next) => ...` would mainly be attractive if failure was automatically handled and you could `await next()` to post-process the response. Though it would still help you write async code inside that route.
Since iirc you send responses directly from handlers in Express, I'm not sure the latter is possible even with express-promise-router since you basically need downstream routes/middleware to return a Response object rather than send it directly.
I think Express is never going to unify with Koa's direction since it's just too disruptive to Express' ecosystem (the v5.x branch is stale) which is probably for the best.
I still use Koa out of habit since it was the only framework for a while that had first-class promise support.
One thing nice about Koa is that it's simple, so it's timeless in that way—it's not a moving target nor does it try to do something that needs a lot of core maintainers.
I'm actually amazed to hear someone say this. Maybe you only travel alone, like middle seats, and are always first to board?
Every time I accidentally fly Southwest, I'm horrified at how bad the boarding system is. People plop down wherever leaving one-seat holes so you can't sit with your partner.
It also guarantees more seat trading than an assigned system because most people in the assigned system have seats they wanted. People on Southwest flights are always haggling so they can sit with their partner. I almost never see seat trading on other flights.
My mind is blown. But then again every time I take a Southwest flight, I'm wondering "who tf is this for?" and I've finally found my guy.
Online check in 24 hours ahead of departure got me a good boarding number, so most aisle (and window) seats would be open. And the times I was flying with someone, one of us would take the middle seat.
The times I didn't check in early could suck, but I was pretty good at spotting couples that had split aisle-window (leaving the middle seat empty), and then calling their bluff.
But it's been several years since I've flown, and I'm sure all carriers have since innovated new ways of making the experience worse, while charging for the privilege of mitigating it.
You need text to scale and reflow to device width if you want text to be readable. This is one of the main reasons for mobile web design. Else you're stuck panning around the screen to read the text zoomed in.
Once you decide to scale text to device size so that it's readable, you are stuck doing the rest of mobile web design (fluid layout).
You need to allow users to scale text as desired, as the original web intended. You shouldn't make a site targeted to mobile; you should make a site that allows the user to display in their client as they wish.
To solve that, you have to move from the easier static made-for-one-width design (what we think of as desktop-first design) and move to fluid, reflowable design which we tend to call mobile-friendly design.
Unfortunately, it tends to take more thought because we usually want widescreen components, like sidebars, that are easier to build when you can hard-code a device width, and hard-coding width is what breaks zooming and text size changes.
I saw similar faux outrage over carbon emissions from training large models. For example, this paper[1] involves hand wringing over the fact that training an original BERT model could have similar emissions to a trans-Atlantic flight. That despite the fact that thousands of such flights occur daily and BERT is (was?) used in a majority of all Google searches.
It actually seems like they mean a single flight as in, a single person's share of CO2 emissions from a flight, not like, the whole flight itself. Their reference for the emissions is this paper[2] which says BERT took 80 hours on 64 v100's and estimates that as 1.4k pounds of CO2 compared to Googling which suggests a single person's share of a flight from the US to the UK is around 1k kilograms of emissions (and about 10-20 dollars of carbon emissions offsets).
Some people just want to find things to complain about.
Though I think the bulk of the confusion just comes from the fact that http://chat.openai.com/chat has two very different views between the free vs paid tiers.
The paid tier makes it obvious that the ChatGPT has swappable models. The free tier hides it by dropping you right into conversation with the one model.
Can you write a prompt that's not fooled by "This text is written in French" with gpt-3.5? The failing gpt-3.5 prompt probably works in gpt-4 without modification.
I don't think you're paying 15-30x more for gpt-4 to be 15-30x better. You're paying 15-30x more because it can do things that gpt-3.5 can't even do.
It all comes down to luck of the draw.