Darn it!

Now this very practical bit of needed legislation will become politicized. Republicans will oppose it as a knee jerk reaction and Trump will create an agency or executive order banning all aftermarket repairs.

This is not an anti Republican post. Both sides do this with every thing. As an independent I'm thoroughly sick of it.

Typescript is basically JavaScript syntax with some extra type information tacked on. It runs through a compiler that produces javascript.

I'm a fan. If you do anything even moderately complex in JavaScript you should look at Typescript. It eases a lot of the pain of using JavaScript.

I moved from C++ to javascript as part of a very advantageous job change.

Unfortunately javascript shortly made me loathe coming to work.

We ported all our code to TypeScript and I get to feel like a real programmer again.
Strict typing is a beautiful thing. Refactoring and compile time bugs instead of runtime disasters.

Yes. It is just physics. But the physics of the thing are that it is raining. Not very useful.

The people who conjecture *why* it's raining and whether it's likely to rain more in the future *do* have bias and sometimes even an agenda.

We occasionally have a Sunday roast and we don't have a range hood.

Though I am eager to put in a range hood because over-the-stove microwaves are disgusting. Range hoods are not very expensive if you install it yourself.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just pointing out that it is an inaccurate correlation to draw between roasts, hoods, and affluence.

Airlines do everything in their power to cheat the customer. Just look at the overbooking practices.
Customers have almost no recourse.

This guy didn't "cheat the system" he bought a flight and didn't take it. Are you honestly suggesting that he is morally obligated to consume the seat he purchased? Do you also think that if you don't finish your meal the restaurant can sue you?

definition of "should":
"used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

The OP was definitely criticizing and was obviously indicating a "more correct" course of action. Therefore- the word "should" was entirely appropriate to describe that comment.

Ironically, your comment starts by saying that the word "should" was inappropriate- but then you proceed to describe exactly why you agree that they should do something else.
We get it. You think it's a waste of time.

Thankfully, none of us nerds have to consider the internet's opinion when deciding what we are going to create.

This was apparently worthwhile to them.

Or do you mean they should work on a project worthwhile to someone else?

A bluetooth dongle that seemlessly streams directly from the internet with no (extra) loss of quality and stays playing even when I leave with my phone?

Just admit it. A bluetooth dongle is nothing at all like the chromecast.

As for privacy- most people already use online music services so someone already knows what they listen to and when. You have to be especially paranoid to only play your own ripped, local, music because of privacy concerns.

The audio chromecasts also had optical output and adapters for RCA.
I love mine. I wish I would have known about this in time to buy some spares.

Uh no. The title must have been phrased by the anti net neutrality crowd.

Actually, Netflix doesn't consume a single byte of downstream traffic. They don't pay for it, they don't consume it.

ISP customers choose to consume the downstream bandwidth that they already paid for by ordering data from Netflix. If the ISPs can't provide the downstream bandwidth that they have *already sold* to their customers then they should face consequences and not try to double charge and extort other companies.

They allegedly committed extortion.
There is no "allegedly" about their ownership of the company.

That is an interesting point. I wonder how this idea could be tested.

I've had enough times that understanding someone's labored English was a chore that I question your hypothesis. Perhaps it was simply a greater chore for people to understand me in their language.

Normally I wouldn't bite on a personal slander like yours but in this case I think it may be valuable to undermine your poor stereotypes.

By the time I was 21 I had lived in 4 countries on three continents and outside of the US for 1/3 of my life. I was fluent in Russian, conversational in Turkish, and studied to a functional tourist level in Spanish and Arabic. My little brothers are fluent in Estonian and Bulgarian. Additionally, although equally anecdotal, I know at least six Americans that live within a suburban block of me who were fluent in a second language including Japanese and Korean. I have coworkers who were fluent in Spanish, Dutch, Tagalog, Portuguese, and Esperanto.
I say "were" because language fades with time.
I don't mean that they studied it in school. All of these lived in the respective countries for some period. (Except the Esperanto, of course, but he also speaks Spanish).

I'm not saying this to try and impress. Many people have learned more and at a younger age (especially when they live in small countries).

You are correct that there are many Americans who are internationally ignorant, like in all large, insulated countries.
You would be foolish to assume that we all are.

Surely this must be sarcastic. Especially with the grammar error.

I have studied a handful of languages and taught English. English is a train wreck to learn.
It is extremely flexible and expressive but the grammar rules and spelling are the linguistic equivalent of the worst spaghetti code.