The client was always a scary landscape to me. Not necessarily because of the many inconsistencies of the browsers. Not because of the idiosyncratic and plain silly parts of javascript, the chosen language of the client. Not even…

I don't trust the client. This, I always thought, is a good thing. A back-end developer should not trust the client. Every input should be validated and mistrusted, all possible interactions with that less (and less-than)… https://t.co/ass4i10pP7
I think some of the inherent conflict, not enmity - never that obvious, between front-end and back-end stems from such mistrust. How can we not mistrust them? To us they are a load of hippies using toy languages and eldricht incantations to work around… https://t.co/8x77CB0OGS
But, something has changed. The browser-wars have quieted down somewhat. Javascript performance has begun to approach a qualitatively acceptable domain. HTML has matured and with FlexBox and Grid even CSS is starting to make some sense (if I squint at it).
And now we have Web Assembly. I'm not going to poke into that with my time and effort, I lost enough nights to assembly back at university. After that i took a look at Java and later C#, and decided that life is far too short to spend it managing… https://t.co/OicCf6EqoE
Still, my main fear lingers. I can now write code in a language that suits me and the problem-domain. I can make the interface in HTML and CSS that makes sense (even to me) and have that all run on the client. Think about this! Purely… https://t.co/rJnPCSwemM
But, still, can I trust it?
I can have the client run my code and do the majority of the work there, and just send the tasty, valuable morsels of calculated data back to my vault in the cloud.

The client remains on the outside, in the wild. A renegade piece of code. A… https://t.co/jKyjQVgnVV
What do we do to trust the client, like we trust our servers? I realise the inherent fallacy of trusting some unknown, transient server in some cloud-provider's hopefully well-protected lagoon. Nevertheless it feels like less of a stretch than actively… https://t.co/cc9TSVzYzU
What I need is to somehow sign my code and make sure that code is what produced the input i receive back. Something that follows my code out into the wilds and tags along with data back to certify that it was really produced and transmitted in… https://t.co/rFo3SDFlst
/end

More from For later read

I’ve asked Byers to clarify, but as I read this tweet, it seems that Bret Stephens included an unredacted use of the n-word in his column this week to make a point, and the column got spiked—maybe as a result?


Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB


For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.

That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.

In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)
Every single public defender. Every single day.


Bail arguments, motions, oral arguments, hearings. Judges don’t know, follow, or care about the law. Prosecutors are willing to take advantage of it. And mandatory minimums, withheld evidence, & pretrial detention coerces people to plead before trial. When theres a jury. A shot.

But defenders still fight. And still win. Most times wins aren’t “Justice.” It’s power of repetition of argument in front of same judges. Introducing those in power to the people they oppress. Not just a RAP sheet or words on a page. Defenders make it harder to be brutal & cruel.

I worked as a public defender at an office as well resourced as any in the country. Social workers, team of investigators, a reentry team, support staff, specialist attorneys in immigration, housing, education, family. Relatively low caseloads (80-100). And yet still injustice.

Most think that balancing the scales of justice means more funding for defenders. Thats part of it. Enough a attorneys to actually be at bail hearings. Wrap around services to be able to help people trapped in the system end up better off in their communities. Lower caseloads.

You May Also Like