why do you think they have you sign up with a phone number in the first place?

Again, spam & abuse prevention. We’ve been over this.

I’m sorry that not everyone thinks Signal is a god app worthy of worship. its a message app, and its not the only one. it does stuff some people don’t like. including me.

I’m not saying that Signal is a god app worthy of worship, I’m saying it’s detrimental for them to include SMS functionality, since that’s fundamentally insecure. That’s literally why they removed it. Is that so hard to understand?

Spam isn’t a binary issue, where it either exists or doesn’t. It could very well be the case that, without requiring a phone number, there’d be far more spam (since it’d be far easier to automatically create new accounts).

Again, do you have a better suggestion for spam & abuse prevention?

And still, aside from that - it doesn’t really make sense to expect Signal to offer SMS integration just because it requires a phone number for spam prevention, when offering this integration would be detrimental towards the mission of Signal (offering secure messages).

Do you have a better approach to prevent spam in mind? Without a barrier of entry it becomes a serious issue.

What? You use a secure messenger to send secure messages. It doesn’t make sense for a secure messenger to offer sending insecure messages (SMS).

Edit: oh, you’re probably referring to why it requires a phone number. This seems to be due to abuse/spam prevention, as otherwise creating new accounts to spam people with is basically free.

It’s arguably a very bad idea for a secure messenger to also provide an SMS interface, since those are basically cleartext

I’d interpret that as a local social network app, not map/navigation.

But if both sides are your enemies, they’re both your friends. But if they’re your friends, they aren’t the enemies of your enemies anymore, which would make them your enemies once again. But then they are your friends again. But then

Though naming it by the following year instead of the release year is clearly a marketing move.

JS itself is great, I prefer it to most other languages due to the flexibility that it allows. Adding types through TS to safeguard against footguns doesn’t mean you’re not still using JS. You can also add the types using comments instead if you prefer it, which means you’re actually writing raw JS.

That’s your prerogative, but it honestly doesn’t make sense. Typescript adds almost no functionality to JS (and the few pieces it adds are now considered mistakes that shouldn’t be used anymore). It only focuses on adding typing information, and in the future you’ll be able to run TS that doesn’t use those few added features as JS (see the proposal).

You can also add the TS types as comments in your JS code, which IMO shows that it’s not a different language.

Not really, considering Typescript only adds static types to JS. It’s not a different language, it’s an extension.

I wouldn’t use raw JS for anything new, yes. Typescript however is an excellent language.

Sure, but at this point it’s your own fault if you don’t use Typescript to keep these issues from happening.

They have to keep hoarding more money to defend against everyone who doesn’t like them for hoarding all that money!

There is operator overloading happening - the + operator has a different meaning depending on the types involved. Your issue however seems to be with the type coercion, not the operator overloading.

It should not happen no matter why it does happen under the hood.

If you don’t want it to happen either use a different language, or ensure you don’t run into this case (e.g. by using Typescript). It’s an unfortunate fact that this does happen, and it will never be removed due to backwards compatibility.

Sure, but then your issue is with type coercion, not operator overloading.

It should just randomly pick any “1”. Add a bit of spice, you know

That’s the case in many languages, pretty much in all that don’t have a separate string concatenation operator.

Sorry, but that’s absolutely wrong - the complexity of articles can vary wildly. Many are easily understandable, while many others are not understandable without a lot of prerequisite knowledge in the domain (e.g. mathematics stuff).

If the reader is interested in the content, they aren’t going to skip it.

But they aren’t interested in the content because of the complexity. You may wish that humans work like you describe, but we literally see that they don’t.

What you can do is provide a simplified summary to make people interested, so they’re willing to engage with the more complex language to get deeper knowledge around the topic.

For example, look at all the iPad kids who can’t use a computer for shit. Kids who grew up with computers HAD to learn the more complex interface of computers to be able to do the cool things they wanted to do on the computer.

You’re underestimating how many people before the iPad generation also can’t use computers because they never developed an interest to engage with the complexity.