Happened to me out on a group training run five years ago. She and I are now engaged and will be getting married in July.
When I still had a personal Reddit account, I would be on the dating and relationship subs and promote the idea to do something every week where you see the same people. even better do two or three such things every week. That's what I did, and I quickly went from zero local friends to dozens.
The gym is a fine place to do that but only if you're doing classes where there's an expectation that people will be socializing. I made some of my best friends in such gym classes including my current best friend. She indirectly introduced me to my fiancé because she suggested I join a running club to train.
The main benefit of XML over JSON is that it is structured, and can be associated with Schema's for built in validation.
Obviously, that's only a benefit if you care about and utilize those features; most teams doing JSON integrations will just build those into the consumer in lieu of them being provided by the transport. But it is something that some people (especially larger enterprise organizations) value.
JSON Schema is an unofficial spec with a bunch of competitors and multiple versions, not all of which are compatible. I don't think you can compare it to XML schema validation.
I'm also not so sure about JSON being easier to map to common data structures. The lack of order guarantees within objects makes things like ordered maps quite annoying (you need to either use an array of entries with key and value, or an index within the mapped objects).
"Structured" in this case refers to being able to be directly mapped to a data structure. Think protobuf and other similar transport mechanisms. The recipient knows what structure to expect because it's not a valid XML document if it's breaking those constraints.
JSON is not, it is closer to the PHP, JS, etc "object" type, which is an ephemeral object with arbitrary member associations.
And, to be clear, this is not a value judgement. They just excel in different fields. XML tends to be easier for strongly and strictly typed languages such as C/C++, C#, Java, etc where you can use the schema to generate your structs automatically. Vanilla JSON is easier for higher level languages that don't require you to manually create a mapping/validation level. JSON Schema tries to bridge that gap to a degree, but isn't built into the standard and isn't even universal.
But, ultimately, both are perfectly sufficient for either use case. It just depends on how much massaging you want to do to make them work.
JSON Schema is largely an answer to people seeking that type of built-in validation. As I'm not a huge proponent for either (a tool is a tool and you work with it in its ecosystem), I don't have personal feelings on it's adequacy.
But, I would suspect, proponents of XML would still point to it's deeper typing system, document structure (especially the hierarchical features of it), and extremely mature ecosystem + tooling (such as XSLTs) as reasons to prefer it over JSON w/ JSON Schema.
Gotcha! Thanks for the rundown. I started programming at the time when we were transitioning from XMLHTTPRequest to Fetch with json so I know of XML but basically only learned about json.
Basically it tells the system what elements are allowed in which places and what attributes they can contain.
<!ELEMENT html (head, body)>
Defines a html element that can contain a head and body, nothing else. Anything extra or missing will fail the validator.
It was kinda-sorta eventually superseded by XML Schema that could also define what KIND of data the attributes could contain, but did exist at the top of XML/HTML/SGML documents for years.
Ah interesting. Whenever I write an API I'll use Zod and whatever middlewares my framework needs to generate json schema for consumers, and whenever I consume an API I will use Zod to parse.
It would be nice if it were just built into the spec though!
I don't reach for it often but I've been around the block a bit, CC processors in the iPad point of sale I built circa 2010 used it and it seemed a bit off/unnecessary.
In retrospect, its useful for creating islands of sanity/enforcement in a codebase. Lightweight way to give type annotations across organizational boundaries.
> we use an XML parser to parse it to JSON and even then it's not perfect
I can't quite picture this: how does one parse XML to JSON? I assume there's code that's parsing XML and returning a JSON object? What would make this not perfect, other than a poor implementation of the translator? Would them using JSON help? If JSON is a less expressive format than JSON, is it possible to 100% translate their XML to JSON?
> useful for creating islands of sanity/enforcement in a codebase
Thanks for the insight! Is this what JSDoc/Swagger is now used for?
> I can't quite picture this: how does one parse XML to JSON?
I'm not sure actually. I haven't personally seen the code, I just hear my coworkers always lambasting that API provider for their usage of XML. Maybe it's just their lack of documentation that sucks, but it's become a running joke whenever we get a new partner that the team integrating it jokes that their API is XML.
> I just hear my coworkers always lambasting that API provider for their usage of XML
I hear this too, but often when I ask why people say things like that, it's either because XML is "outdated" or because they don't like it.
It's like programs written in C or C++: very few large projects chose those languages nowadays, often for good reasons, so the projects written in those languages are usually 10 to 20 years old. Age comes with a lot of legacy cruft and obscure behaviour, but that's not the fault of those languages per se. Or for people blasting banks for using COBOL, even though COBOL is a perfectly fine high-performance language for the niches bank mainframes serve.
I assume by database he meant a relational database. But I don't see the advantage of that over just having skills and memory it in our source control database. Am I missing something?
I didn't have a calculator until my senior year of highschool. But since we weren't alliwed to use them in tests, I didn't feel like I was missing anything.
As an engineering student at CMU, I had an HP 15c like everyone else. A few years back when I found out they are coveted, I sold mine on ebay. I have an emulator on my phone.
I assume that calculators will continue to evolve and that my grandchildren will have a Propædeutic Enchiridion.
You lose little by assuming malicious intent when it comes to billion-dollar tech companies and your money. They can prove otherwise by remedying the situation.
When it comes to understanding large organizations I think a simple principle should apply:
The Purpose of a System is What it Does[1].
Whether malicious or not, the system does what it does. If people wanted it to do something else they would change the system. The reality is that when corporations make mistakes that benefit them those mistakes rarely get fixed without some sort of public outcry, turning the "mistake" into a "feature".
Intriguing concept, but I feel it needlessly breaks language. A more narrow (and to me, less pompous) formulation would be that social groups have their own purpose, different from (though not unrelated to) the purposes of the individual members. And this collective purpose can be read best from the actions of the collective, just like the purpose of a person is best divined from their actions (actions speak louder than words).
It does not. I would be fairly magical the most favorable interpretation that makes sense is that its supposed to disconnect but also taking your money is a defect.
ok, how is this adequately explained by stupidity?
If it is adequately explained by stupidity then you should be able to get it to display the same behavior without mentioning OpenClaw? Do you have any theory as to what stupid thing they have done to make this happen, non-maliciously? Because, Hanlon's razor doesn't just work by saying Hanlon's razor - you have to actually explain how the stupidity happened.
What you do shows what you value. This clearly wasn't a mistake on the part of Anthropic. Time has shown that. They made the call based on what they believe in
Think about how they validate how old you are. Meta and Google, who are lobbying in support of this legislation,will force you to sign up with your real ID, and be the arbiter for questions like “are you old enough for this website”. For every request that you make through some third-party website that needs to know your age, Meta and Google will know where you tried to login, and for which content. They will then resell this data to the highest bidder. Additionally, through all their ad networks and tracking, they will follow your session and have verified ID to match your entire browsing history. This is the end of anonymity and privacy on the Internet.
None of this is true. The fact that there are many, many companies out here today that are doing exactly what you are claiming for the non-CA age verification laws (like in TN and TX), yet you went down the conspiracy route for Meta and Google shows how much you are being played like a fiddle.
They can feed you an conspiracy and you'll eat it up because you were primed to have a cognitive bias, and will ignore the actual, real-world harms going on.
Age verification companies literally require your personal information to function. They don't want you to be able to send them a simple boolean over Tor in exchange for whatever trackable token you need to access something.
If technically competent people specify and build this system, sure. But it’ll be specified by complete idiot politicians, influenced by Google and Meta, who 100% DO want to know your government name, DOB, etc., so we’ll end up flashing our IDs at the camera, turning around to be scanned, etc. The platform owners will tell us they “deeply care about our privacy.”
When I still had a personal Reddit account, I would be on the dating and relationship subs and promote the idea to do something every week where you see the same people. even better do two or three such things every week. That's what I did, and I quickly went from zero local friends to dozens.
The gym is a fine place to do that but only if you're doing classes where there's an expectation that people will be socializing. I made some of my best friends in such gym classes including my current best friend. She indirectly introduced me to my fiancé because she suggested I join a running club to train.
reply