Are you saying that is the to string value of a URL object instantiated with the url of a page containing just an image tag, or are you saying it’s the value when you instantiate an object with a url parameter to the png file itself? If it’s the png file itself my 0.02 is that is a logical choice. Obviously the to string ( or whatever it is, I’m not a JS dev ) isn’t the binary data, and I believe in the binary encoded response body there is a meta data signature block that contains that info.
I think there’s at least something true hidden in the post you’re responding to. While I don’t necessarily think it’s a strong enough point to base salary decisions on, nor do I think it’s the actual reasoning behind GitLabs policy, I can for sure see how being overly paid for a job that you’ve grown to hate produces poor results for the company and possibly the employee
The NSAs work is likely focused around parsing large amounts of data, building exploits for various technologies, things related to access and identity, etc.
I’m sure that for niche activities the NSA implements with whatever tool fits the job. However, in general, for more generalized activities such as parsing data, building reports, building access control systems, etc you’re going to want to use a language that is common and has longevity. Additionally, you’ll probably want a language that is performant but isn’t so low-level that programmers are spending their time writing code that is purely technical and not aligned with the end goal of the organization. Java is good mix of performance, common, lasting, etc. Additionally government agencies seem to love static, strongly typed, compiled languages. Those programming principles seem to align with the overall rigidity of government
My 0.02 but the airspace above the park is not the park or else you could take that to a logical extreme. A park is the land/waterways within a geographical bounds with a specific designation. It does not include the air above the park which is why planes flying over your house are not trespassing
Planes flying over your house are not trespassing because they are far enough up that they are considered to be on public highway. If you hover a helicopter over my house and hang via a rope outside my bedroom window, you are absolutely trespassing even if you have not touched the building or the ground at any point.
And going to logical extremes is always going to lead to absurdity. Let's go in the other direction. A hovercraft doesn't touch the ground, so would a reasonable person also consider that to not be on their property when it's powered on in their front yard?
I would argue that “no shirt, no shoes, no service” is not rule but rather a concise and simplistic phrase that communicates the spirit of the rule to a broad audience. The rule is that a human must have their feet, part of their lower and upper body covered or else they will be denied entry and/or refused service. The phrase is just a way to communicate that rule in a concise way
That's kind of my point though. Written rules sacrifice specificity for brevity all the time, and it works for most reasonable people most of the time.
The vehicle in the park game seemed very obvious to me with a 100% result. I’m having a hard time imagining what others could have disagreed with.
A vehicle is loosely defined as a human-sized ( but not necessarily human operated ), generally functioning motorized transport device. Emergency vehicles in the park technically violate the parks rule ( even though the violation is basically rendered meaningless ).
A tank would be a vehicle even if it was inoperable, but not if it was intentionally made inoperable. It ceases to be a vehicle and instead becomes a display piece, memorial, etc.
In the park means any land or water within the parks geographic bounds, but definitely not airspace.
A toy is a toy. It may be a replica of a vehicle but it is not a vehicle. A bike, skateboard, rowboat, etc are not motorized and are therefore not a vehicle in the most common colloquial usage.
