![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d82718c7-5579-4676-8e2e-97b4188f10d3.png)
Bröther
Bröther
Ah yes, the four passions of the dwarf:
Remember when they didn’t have smoking sections, you were allowed to smoke anywhere?
Oh shit that works surprisingly well
You’re gonna end up with an empty feed real quick 😭
I wasn’t taking about new fields. I was talking about resource partial updates (eg PATCH, or commonly the U in CRUD).
If you just want to update a single field on a resource with 100 fields, rather than GETting the entire resource, updating the single field, and PUTting whole thing back, just do a PATCH with the single field.
Likewise if you’re POSTing a resource that has nullable fields, but the default value isn’t null, how do you indicate that you want the default value for a given field? Do you have to first query some metadata API? That doesn’t seem ideal, when this existing pattern exists
Imagine you’re writing a CRUD API, which is pretty common.
If null attributes aren’t included in the payload, and someone does an update (typically a PATCH), how do you know which fields should be nulled out and which should be ignored?
I agree for many cases the two are semantically equivalent, but it’s common enough to not have them be equivalent that I’m surprised that it causes arguments
For many uses it is semantically the same.
But for cases where you need to know if something was intentionally set to null or was simply not set, the difference is enormous.
Ah yes the difference between “unset” and “intentionally set to null”, the bane of API devs who work in languages that don’t inherently distinguish between the two.
I love when an API takes a json payload, and one of the json fields is a string that contains json, so I have to serialize/deserialze in stages 😭
That and snyder.
And of course, no conflict of interest there at all
$99 for your only carpet whole
Have you seen what the supreme Court justices that he appointed have been doing?
They make a big stink about old supreme courts overreaching, but seem to go out of their way to grab power for themselves and their buddies 🤔
I never made it as a wise man
What a loss 😏
Hmmm interesting. I was under the impression that enshitification was “making something shittier in the pursuit of (eg) greed”, I didn’t realize that it only applies to when the creator (controller? owner?) of the thing does it.
Has it always been used for this specific case? If so, what is the word for the more general case I described?
You make it sound like monetization can’t happen on a FOSS platform. Bots are a form of monetization, it’s just not by the people who created and control the platform.
As it gets popular, bots will come for the purpose of creating an audience and monetizing them.
Poe’s Law, in action
Lol well, fair enough!
I still aggressively assert that it still benefits humanity to protect each other, even people who don’t know they need it.
But that’s a pretty reasonable response, I have to admit lol
I think that’s common now. It’s at least the same where I live.
But way back you could smoke anywhere in a restaurant, etc. even on planes, at one point.