The millstones of the gods grind late, but they grind well. It depends where you're from -- there is always potential for dramatic change in a people as obedient as the German.
The "The Traditional Way" section of the article covers the shortcomings of the WebRTC approach (i.e. ICE) and why it does not always result in a P2P session forming/the TURN server leaving the picture.
The tldr is having a TURN server enables more hole-punching methods to be attempted, but that's not the same thing as a guarantee the session will succeed in switching to P2P.
Hamburger is somewhat traditional food. So it makes sense to be regulated as such - to not be able to name any crap hamburger, but only specific crap hamburger. One that is beef patty inside a bun. Having a animal derived patty by grinding is essential part of some item being called hamburger.
I realize this may be satire (Poe's law and all). But I disagree 'hamburger' should get protected status, in anything except the exact quotation without clear prefix/suffix. "Vegetarian Hamburger" (in near-equal font pt) should be fine, Veggie-burger shouldn't even be up for debate imo.
If fine-print is confusing consumers maybe we should improve our labeling standards rather than protecting a food category not in need of protection.
I think that's reasonable regarding expectations, but the flip side is you can't make a vegan patty and call it 'vegan burger like patty'.
The discussed regulation smells heavily of measures to protect the meat industry rather than the consumer who is absolutely able to discern between the classic and vegetarian alternatives.
Why not? Consumers are more likely to give vegetarian products a chance when they are 'drop in' replacements. A 'vegetarian burger' instead of a 'burger' would sell better than a 'plant based patty'.
Feel free to protect 'Hamburg-style Steak', but protecting 'burger' is stupid. Also very odd coincidence that the rise of vegetarian/vegan alternatives prompts the reaction, when nobody batted an eye at 'fish burger' or 'chicken burger'. I suppose that anything which promotes not murdering innocent animals is bad.
Personally, I think that's a good idea. Design patterns naturally make sense (Visitor, Builder for e.g) once you encounter such a situation in your codebase. It almost makes complete sense then. Otherwise IMHO, it's just premature abstraction
Different people like different things about travel.
For instance, some might just want to relax in an environment far from their default, with the whole thing 100% planned so they don’t have any unnecessary stressors.
How is one supposed to context switch between reading a book and rigorously understanding and verifying potentially hundreds of lines of code generated by an AI?
