Agreed. Why would a person need to look it up when the name literally describes it. Directed? Means connections are in a single direction. Acyclic? A-cyclic = non-cyclical, doesn’t have cycles. Graph is… well a graph.

Which part does the author think an average programmer should struggle with?

Most games, image processing libraries and other compute demanding libraries already use WASM in the browser. Have been for quite some time. It’s already widely used in every case where it provides a substantial benefit.

But writing for GUI, which is what 99% of JS is used for, WASM provides little benefit. The speed bottleneck is mostly in DOM manipulation. And every web GUI framework uses 200 npm packages with something like webpack. Getting that to somehow work with your WASM code would be a nightmare if it’s even feasible.

This is quite a bit worse than kicking a puppy. Of course, it’s horrible when puppies get kicked but ultimately they will be on. This, on the other hand would be a major set back to humanity, potentially permanent as our rights and privacy are erroded day by day.

That legitimately reads like it was written by a teenager who played a bunch of strategy games.

So much of it is “this is how it will be” in a prescriptive tone as if you can just will things into existence.

You could describe perfect capitalism in this exact manner, but obviously things don’t work in real life according to your perfect scenario.

Yeah, I really don’t know what widely used language is worse than Javascript besides php (which is hardly used in new projects).

Nope. Use it very often, though mostly usually with typescript.

Raw Javascript becomes a massive hindrance in any project past half a dozen files and 1000 lines.

Typescript makes it a lot more usable.

It is an overused joke, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

Being easy to understand is one of the primary goals of any programming languages.

The problem with Javascript is that it isn’t easy to understand. Javascript is easy to write.

That’s why it’s easy for novices to pick up and why it ends up being spaghetti code. It’s very unrestrictive and allows writing very poor code that works based on assumptions and breaks when the assumptions aren’t met.

It made sense at the time because it was just a scripting language for some minor website things, and you didn’t want your site to crash if your script ran into a problem.

Now it’s being used to write full fledged applications and it’s past design choices are still haunting it.

get your credit card stolen.

Let’s see… I don’t provide my credit card to anyone when pirating. The only way they are getting my credit card is breaking into my house. (no, mkv files can’t have viruses).

But I do need to provide my credit card info to HBO, which they store, on their likely poorly secured servers.

The number of credit cards stones from data leaks very likely exceeds the number of them stolen because someone got duped when trying to pirate.

Wow he got a death threat in an email, which also asked for his address lmao.

Poor guy. First day on the internet must be tough.

If you receive a death threat that you think is real, you contact the police and the FBI. But considering that the man who was threatening him didn’t even know his address, I struggle to think how he thought it was an actionable threat.

That could indicate a lot of things. It would be very difficult to distinguish a torrent from something like cloud folder sync. And that would still be a statistical guess. No ISP is going to go after customers because their VPN traffic is potentially torrent traffic.

Besides, even if they could detect that torrenting is taking place, they will not know what data is being transferred from and to where. It’s a meme, but torrents are actually sometimes used for non-copyright infringing data.

I can’t really think of a reason those specific drinks would give you a headache.

I compared the ingredients of coke cherry zero with regular coke zero, and the ingredient lists are almost literally identical. The only difference would be in the flavoring they use, both of which are just listed as “Natural Flavors”.

The only other difference is coke cherry zero has marginally more Acesulfate Potasium or less Potassium Citrate. We can tell because their position on the ingredient list is swapped. It’s not well known, but ingredient lists are sorted from highest to lowest content.

Potasium Citrate is found in many foods, in particular in lemons, grapefruit and pomegranates. It’s added for preservation and flavor.

Acesulfate Potasium is another artificial sweetener, with sweetness on par with Aspartame. Like aspartame, it’s a very well studied food additive and is deemed completely safe by regulators.

But again, both drinks contain them, so even if we disregard that they are safe, the small difference in content is very very unlikely to cause any effect.

And you don’t have to be an idiot to be susceptible to confirmation bias. Our brains are built to look for patterns, but sometimes they see them where they don’t exist.

As for #2, really any amount of sugary drinks is bad for you. This includes fruit juices (including “no sugar added” and freshly pressed). The problem comes from how fast your body absorbs the sugar. Sugar dissolved in water is very quickly absorbed and causes a rapid spike in blood glucose. These spikes put you at risk of developing a range of nasty conditions - in particular Type 2 Diabetes and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. Of course drinking one can won’t immidiately give you those conditions, not unlike how smoking one cigarette won’t immidiately give you lung cancer. But like there is no “healthy” number of cigarettes you can smoke, there is no healthy amount of sugary drinks you can consume.

It’s best to avoid, but of course nobody is expected to live perfectly healthy lives, so drinking a can now and then will probably not harm you.

If you want to have a sugary drink, make sure you do not drink it on an empty stomach. Drinking it with a meal will slow down how quickly sugar is absorbed. For the same reason, eating sweet fruits like apples is perfectly healthy despite relatively high sugar content. The sugar is locked inside the solids of the fruit and is absorbed slowly.

Artificial sweeteners are usually 200-1000 times sweeter than sugar, so their content is tiny compared to sugar. A can of coke zero contains 87mg of aspartame. Aspartame has no effect on blood glucose or insulin levels. Even if it did, such a tiny amount could not cause a spike.

This is why I get agitated with headlines like these. WHO announces some study that they haven’t even published that says aspartame “might be carcinogenic” which flies in the face of decades of research and widespread usage. And thousands of fear mongering articles will push the already misinformed public to drinking sugary drinks that in contrast are practically poison.

The 2nd point in the blog post you present as a source is factually incorrect:

2. Artificial sweeteners contribute to chronically high insulin.

The link (bolded by me) in the following text

One of the most commonly used artificial sweeteners in diet sodas, aspartame is particularly damaging to the brain.

Goes to a page titled “Can Sugar Affect Your Cognitive Ability?”. They didn’t even link to the thing their text is claiming.

How can you take this trash seriously?

And personal anecdotes are absolutely worthless in discussions like this. Artificial sweeteners are consumed by a massive portion of the population. Any person who falls ill is likely to have consumed artifical sweeteners, so they will have incredible correlation with every disease on the planet.

Probably because many of them have a non-negligible amount of caffeine.

Aspartame does not cause headaches.

1. No, aspartame does not give you a headache. It’s probably the caffeine that’s present in many sodas, such as coke. There is no known biological mechanism for aspartame to give you a headache. It’s just confirmation bias.

2. The main harm of sugary drinks are the incredibly harmful effects from huge insulin spikes and damaging your liver. Teeth is pretty low on the list.

3. Diet soda drinks are still harmful to your teeth because of their high acidity. Not as harmful as sugary drinks, but still. It’s the only proven major health concern of diet sodas.

You don’t trust the FDA after you’ve read that they conclude that aspartame is safe, which is in line with over 100 other countries’ regulatory agencies?

Wait until you read what the FDA has to say about water.

What makes you think that stevia or “natural” sweeteners are better?

At the very least, they have to go thought an industrial process of extraction that can leave unwanted chemical agents in the final product. And anything naturally grown is a subject to be contaminated with pesticides and other unwanted substances.

The difference between “possibly cancerous” and “fully cancerous” is that the former is not confirmed to have the property of causing cancer.

Radiation on the other hand is known to be carcinogenic.

To use your analogy, we know that there are bacteria that cause infections and bacteria that are harmless to humans. Let’s say we have bacteria A that is known to cause infection but not always in everyone. Then we have a bacteria B, which is potentially able to cause infection. We don’t know for certain that it can, but we also don’t know that it can’t.

And yes, it’s a pretty fucking useless designation, and WHO is wasting everyone’s time and causing undue panic. Let’s not forget how they completely fucked the world with their atrocious handing of Covid in the early stages of the outbreak.

Unsweetened is a subclass of “zero/no sugar”. No sugar added is a completely separate thing.

No sugar added does not mean the product doesn’t contain sugar or that it’s not sweet. It only means there was no extra sugar added during the preparation. A “no sugar added” fruit juice, jam or even ketchup is still going to be sweet.

Something like pure maple suryp qualifies as no sugar added despite being 99% sugar.

Not cancerous whatsoever. It’s approved for use worldwide and it’s one of the most studied additives on the planet.

It has been massively consumed worldwide for many decades, without causing any statistically noticeable increase in cancer rates.

Considering the incredibly negative health impact of sugary drinks, artificial sweeteners probably prevented millions of deaths over the decades they have been used.

Like the other “scary” “it causes cancer” studies, they probably stuffed a rat with its body weight of aspartame and when it developed cancer they figured it’s carcinogenic.

Completely disregarding that a can of artificially sweetened coke will have less than 1g of aspartame, which is 0.0002% of average human’s bodyweight.