The big difference is that while the PHP major upgrades - although had breaking changes - provided a forward-compatible way for you to run older version code on a newer version PHP (see WordPress for PHP 5 running fine on PHP 8), Python did not offer such a thing; code was either exclusively for Python 2 or for Python 3, making upgrade paths very difficult.
I remember getting that error in the past, and at the time googling for that token gave few results, so it was a slightly bigger deal than you would think.
99% of the time the cause was: you are on PHP 5.2, but we're trying to use PHP 5.3 late static binding ( `static::someMethod()` ).
I'm implying that if you "don't need Next.js", because it's too heavy-weight (because e.g. you already have a dedicated team working on the back end API using a different language), then too bad: there's no lighter-weight alternative that is viable.
Every time I hear any news about routing in a React framework I always get disappointed that the news isn't that they're introducing type-safe (TypeScript) routes to enable type-safe linking.
Nearly all front end metaframeworks/starters are like this, which is why I've given up on trying to run them in Docker, because it's just over-complicating the deploy process with no real benefit due to what you mentioned, and I'd rather just use simpler tools like Netlify.
One of the reasons I haven't moved over to NeoVim is because they removed this feature, because supposedly it's not perfect or something. So sure, the NSA may be able to still be able to extract my passwords if they arrest me and take my computer, but the point is that random people won't be able to.
I don't see how the "men" part is relevant of what you are saying. The "rich" part is a good point: that's certainly more unfair.
I'm thinking that if men and women of equally poor background, women have this escort option that men don't (obviously they do, but it pays far less good on average than women).
It is absolutely supply and demand. I meant girl escorts when I wrote what I wrote. I find it unfair that it you're born a girl and are pretty, you have this option.
I read the entire article.
By making a lot of relatively low effort I mean selling something for a lot that's not a expensive items or valueable experienced labor.
And like I said, before I thought this was all low effort work, and through this article I got to see the high effort business side.
Although as a male I highly support that sex work be legal, and acknowledge it as legitimate work, I do not tend to honestly respect this type of work (besides the courage to do it and such). I find it quite unfair be able to make so much money for relatively low effort (at least it feels that way despite the downsides/dangers).
But I must say that this escort is super smart and has a really good sense of business. This article also gave me some newfound respect for escorts for the fact that although on the surface they seem to mostly just use their bodies, they do put in a lot of effort on the business and strategy side which people don't talk about.
Although Livewire allows you to do that, and shows counters in its examples, for such things that shouldn't require communication with the backend (e.g. saving, or grabbing data from the DB), you are rather meant to use something like Alpine or petite-vue for lightweight JS manipulation than to make use of Livewire's feature for it to waste a roundabout request to the backend.
I'm quite a noob, and this is a bit off-topic, but if it's mathematically proven that no sorting algorithm can be faster then O(n*log(n)), but we know for sure that checking if an array is sorted is O(n), then doesn't that prove that P ≠ NP?
Though whatever data is "lost" in a password manager is usually recoverable; each password could be individually reset in each website. True though that it's a pain.
This algorithm creates an initially empty array of size K with the DB internal ids of what would randomly be selected.
Then it goes in order from 0 to the number of rows - 1, and for each one it goes e.g.
"What are the chances that number 0 would get randomly picked out of N items if K items need to be picked?"
Then, if the #0 passes the "random check", it gets added. Then it would go to 1 and go
"What are the chances #1 would be picked out of N-1 items if K-1 items need to be picked?"
...and repeated so on until all K random items have been picked?