But yeah basically "Kleidermacher" was historically a genderless term for quite a long time (potentially always) and was then gendered again, by people who seemingly misunderstood the generic masculinum. The people who made this worse misunderstood that sexus and genus are two different things.

As I explained before, this is quite ironic given that the -in suffix is now being said to be not inclusive.

But historically this has been a complicated topic. Basically about a hundred years ago the genus and sexus of words started to get separated. Thanks to that you can say "Katze" to both male and female cats. Historically you had to say "Kater" to a male cat.

But of course there were people in the 90s (it started earlier than that) who considered the generic masculinum uninclusive for women, since why is the male genus allowed to be the generic form of the language? Everything had to be gendered explicitly again! Awesome! /s Instead of rolling back the split of genus and sexus of the past decades, they instead opted for just sticking the already existing, but less popular -in suffix to everything and anything. A generic word like "Student" now had it's proper sexus again as "Student und Studentin".

But as you might already know that's uninclusive for nonbinary people and thus we're now at a point where we say "Studierende" or "Studentx" or "Student:in" instead, which linguistically really doesn’t make much sense at all anymore. Awesome! /s

One step forward, two steps backwards. But again, as explained above, the "Kleidermacher" can be of any genus, because...

Genus and sexus are two different things in German.

I believe many (young) people will tell you that women are "just" like that, but actually mean "they are just taught to think so", because in their male position there is no need to choose are careful wording. I'm also pretty sure that, while the society at large is fault for this herd thinking about this, the parents play the biggest role in where the daughter places herself in the world.

This time due to shipping an utterly broken compiler to an unfinished language, without being able to contribute to it. Because if we could contribute to it, Swift might still be soon something that people love to use. But I somehow really don't believe that this will ever truly happen.

  function foo(s) {
    function generator(i) {
      return function () {
        return i;
      };
    }

    var r = new Array(s);
    
    for (var i = 0; i < s; i++) {
      r[i] = generator(i);
    }
    
    return r;
  }

  console.log(foo(1000)[42]());

  function foo(s) {
    function generator(i) {
      return i;
    }

    var r = new Array(s);
    
    for (var i = 0; i < s; i++) {
      r[i] = generator.bind(window, i);
    }
    
    return r;
  }

  console.log(foo(1000)[42]());

I just wan't to add that the problem is not that SpaceX provides less to humanity than WhatsApp.

The problem is that most people are not really far-sighted, but only see things which benefit themselves in a predictable amount of time.

Why companies like SpaceX (or NASA) are important has already been answered with Why Explore Space? A 1970 Letter to a Nun in Africa

https://launiusr.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/why-explore-space-...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4372563

If you remove a service on OSX 10.10 it's removal will be broadcast. But it doesn't stop there. No... Most of the time the service will be published again after that and after a second or so it will be finally removed. How the hell did this pass even the most basic QA checks?!

So... It would be nice to see her face harsh consequences on this side too. I'm pretty sure that we both can agree on that one.

Making a movie about the assassination of the NK leader doesn't imply hate. I'm pretty sure making the movie wasn't about the hate against NK per se, but rather a comedy about the situation in an oppressed country.

If you burn a koran/bible I'm pretty sure we all know what that means: You hate the religion and wan't it to die.

As you can see the difference is that the first one falls under free- and the other under hate-speech.

Now if you ask me, it's still wrong to hate against those who burn "holy books" or whatever. In my opinion hate speech is integral to having free spech, even if it should be watched carefully (I really don't wan't a third reich here in germany) - something that has been lost in the past couple years. But it's important to differenciate between both.

define.js: 259 LOC

You should rather ask what the difference to almond is (which is also from jburke and useful for bundled loading - I think this is more similiar to define.js).

almond: 275 LOC

As to a reason why someone would write his own AMD loader: I once wrote one, because I want'ed to be able to pass objects as array elements to the require parameter, to forward them to the callback function. Something similiar to this:

    function callback(module1, object, module2) { ... }
    require(['some-module-ID', object, 'another-module-ID'], callback);

Also I could implement a global requirement list. A synchronous script in the head could add entries to this list and thus prevent the execution of any asynchronous script, which was not in the list. Thus those in the list could be loaded asynchronously. After all of them where resolved, all the others could be loaded.

For instance this is incredibly useful, if you wan't to load IE shims, for things like this: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Element.cla... etc.

I guess I could open source it, if I feel like it. :D

Edit: Fixed LOC numbers. I also just checked my implementation: Only 168 LOC, while nearly implementing AMD (without relativ paths!), tuned for Closure/uglify.js/etc. and compatible to IE6, but with those 2 features above. I guess that's pretty good too…

Imho "not [...] a priori" is not the same as a simple "not".

In no way I intended to say that my framework is better overall, but I do think it's better suited for simple things, like apps.

In fact, I think I will integrate something like their "four-part abstraction", because I really think this is a great idea.

I'm currently working on my own library using libuv, http-parser, nghttp2 and wslay, which is very similiar in it's use to node.js. As you might guess a echo server is therefore only about 15 lines of code, but about as performant as your framework. The downsite is that it's not as flexible due to the missing "4-part abtraction" (really… an excellent idea).

That's why your release somehow saddens me: When I'm going to release my framework to the public, it might be pretty good for cross platform apps etc. compared to others, but it will never ever be as popular as yours. Heck… I don't even have 10 twitter followers.

  @-webkit-keyframes scroll {
    from {
      -webkit-transform: translate(0, 0);
    }
    to {
      -webkit-transform: translate(-300px, 0);
    }
  }

  .resultMarquee{
    -webkit-animation: scroll 7s linear 0 infinite;
    position: absolute;
  }