Lots of mathematical algorithms sort lists lexicographically. It comes up in graphs and lots of other combinatorics problems. Often you want a total order on 2D coordinates, an this ordering is (usually) the simplest and best.
It is not the same because in the case of the coins above a flash crash results in liquidation of the collateral to support the peg. In the case of Luna there was no such mechanism as it relies on people doing the arbitrage required to maintain the peg.
The difference is that you can always redeem UST for LUNA, which directly results in minting additional LUNA (the total amount of LUNA in circulation increases when UST is destroyed), while the same does not happen for debt-based stablecoins.
In the case of DAI and other debt-based stablecoins, there is no minting of additional collateral when liquidations occur or when debt is repaid (the total amount of the underlying collateral in circulation does not increase when DAI is destroyed).
This is the main difference between so-called "algorithmic stablecoins" (e.g. UST, FRAX, USDN), which rely on internal collateral (whose supply can be arbitrarily expanded/contracted by the controlling entity) and "overcollateralized debt-based stablecoins", which usually rely on external collateral (whose supply cannot be arbitrarily expanded/contracted).
Treating these two different things as if they are the same is not particularly insightful.
It’s a way of conveniently achieving compatibility with old and new browsers.
JavaScript is executed differently when it’s a “module script” to when it’s a “classic script” (using the HTML spec terms), so you want a way of preventing old browsers from executing it (whether they’re syntactically compatible or not). Hence type="module", because old browsers won’t execute scripts with the type attribute containing an unknown value.
Once you have that, you commonly want to bifurcate on modules support, so you want a way of saying “don’t execute this if you support modules”. This can be done with feature-detection code, to the effect of “does it support modules? if yes, do nothing; if no, load the code, probably by adding another script tag with the correct src to the document”, but this is inconvenient and causes at least mild inconvenience with security measures like Content-Security-Policy. So the solution was to put another attribute there that new browsers could use as the inverse of type="module": nomodule.
Perhaps it’s a big ol’ sigh, but as is very commonly the case with such sighs, they make a good deal of sense when you understand the reasons and history involved.
module has defer semantics by default i.e. it gets executed after the document has finished parsed, and I can't find anything in the WHATWG spec to suggest it's different for inline scripts
Maybe inline scripts ignore module, as they do defer and async
Not sure if this is still the case but the browser version didn't have the same noise suppression features as the desktop client.
Another minor thing for me was that the desktop client doesn't stack with the browser window in the taskbar (i.e. I can still 1 click both if I only have 1 browser window open which I usually do) and it can be minimized into the system tray.
I was under the impression that Deno is a runtime mostly intended for the server environment which is probably an area where GPU presence isn't generally as strong as on other types of devices outside of the applications that specifically need it. I could be wrong of course about anything or everything.
Most of the times when I interact with the address bar it's either to go to a different site, google something or copy the url - in all of those use cases I interact with the entire address to either replace it or select it.
I would wager almost anything that this is the case for the vast majority of regular users because most of the ones I've interviewed (N = 31) for a uni UX study didn't even know how to read URLs for the most part - especially not after the ? query part.
It's sad but true. Googling is probably Firefox's only feature left. After they trashed the dev ecosystem, removed file access, prevented 127. access and prevented ssl bypass for 10. and 192.168. broke markdown rendering, disabled CD access, made development painful, fsckd ftp, banned useful stuff on file:// removed anything useful from about: made developing inside Firefox a nonstarter, borked Web app, and generally broke any use case other than Googling/Shopping.
I doubt many people type much into the omnibar other than input for advertising platforms.
They probably meant that because the guidelines discord has setup are automated bots that occasionally hit innocent people while trying to enforce the rules. I think they were speaking in the broader context of Discord servers rather than the WSB Reddit or Discord specifically.
Then they should make that clear, as the thread and the GP's comments are specifically about the situation with WSB. Otherwise, someone who comes in not knowing anything about the situation, and sees the comment and assumes that the WSB discord was banned because its uers were describing their day to day issues living with disabilities.
Yes, I was talking about hasanabi's discord server (a twitch channel) in particular, but I'm sure it's not alone and there are reasons. I don't blame them at all, it's the system that sets these incentives.
With all due respect, that's not what you said in your comment, and it read to me as an attempt to deliberately spread FUD about discord's moderation practices. If you're thinking of a specific incident, and introducing it as a discussion point, you need to actually mention it. Re-reading your original comment, I still can only read it as Discord banning WSB because people are speaking out about their real life issues
It's not discord themselves who enact the harsh moderation (which quite often includes bots banning some words, with punishments from alerting a mod to banning you for a bit), but rather server "owners" who risk platforming if discord deems them unable to police themselves.
The problem is, that discord uses certain criteria to determine if a server is able to police itself, and those criteria happen to be fairly harsh on repeat (even if swallowed by the noise/message stream) disability mocking.
I'm criticizing the incentives Discord's polices create for moderation.
I'm sorry my wording was bad. I certainly did not intend any FUD spreading.
Pretty sure when krageon said "that's not what they said" they were referring to poster of the original comment that was being replied to - not the know it alls from 90s.
It's interesting that this seems on one hand "unpredictable" while also being logical. If a company has employees familiar with TypeScript (or even JS) and they have to make a choice between yet another flavor of that or a new language like C/Rust... well the choice is understandable. Once again the path of least resistance to a new web technology ended up being JavaScript - it just wasn't immediately obvious when WASM first emerged.
