aebletrae [she/her]

Yeah, that’s what I was suspecting.

I ended up leaning towards “download” being used in the boomer way of meaning any data transfer, whatever the direction, which in this case would more specifically be called an “upload”. And that “online” was being used to mean “using a website”, even though the local processing is offline.

The alternative fit to the description I had considered was a website you could give an URL, so it retrieves the zip file and allows you to inspect it remotely, and maybe just download some of the contained files, so it deals with the risk and bandwidth issues for you. That would be a different kind of useful, though it’d only be a few days before someone uses it for malign purposes and gets the site operator a no-knock visit from the fuzz, so that seemed much less likely.

I can see a use for an app that can be used where they can’t be installed, though.

I’m confused. How are you defining “download” and “online” here?

The website suggests that the server holds the files and does the extraction:

Extract and Explore compressed files online [emphasis mine]

which fits with the github claim of:

to view and extract zip files online without downloading them

but the website also states that:

nothing leave your browser

which suggests that the server has nothing to do with it, and you do actually download the zip files first.

What am I missing?

the intent of the code is to get the previous month RELATIVE to the current date.

But that isn’t what it does. From the original post:

function getMonthName(monthNumber) {
  const date = new Date();
  date.setMonth(monthNumber - 1);

  return date.toLocaleString([], { month: 'long' });
}

That is a function which is meant to take a number (presumably 1 to 12) and return a localized name for it. This is essentially an array lookup and should return the same output for a given input (and locale) every time it is called. If the intent is to return a value relative to the current date, it is even more wrong, since it should gather the month from the current date, not the function paramenter. This claim of intent, not present in the original post, is an example of you changing your story over time.

Yes, it would help find the problem faster because the first time invalid date is passed in the program will crash.

No, it wouldn’t. As I have said before, testing for unexpected return values is just as effective as testing for errors, that is, not very with the function originally presented under sensible assumptions. If the function actually did look like the intent you claim, the tests would be different, necessarily replacing Date for consistent runs, but would be equally likely to catch the problem whether failing on value or error. And if you are eschewing testing and relying on runtime crashes, you have bigger problems.

Given that I have agreed and commiserated, and neither of us can change JavaScript, there is nothing to be gained from pursuing this complaint. In contrast, what I have tried to say, if followed, would give you an approach that leads to more reliable code, even in the face of undesirable APIs.

I had thought that worth pursuing, and had thought you worth investing my considerable time. Alas, I can only lead you to the water…

I’m not missing your points, even as you change them. I’ve agreed that JS sucks. I’ve agreed that errors can be more helpful. I’m not trying to argue with you about that. What I have said, from the beginning, is that in the code you originally presented a behavioural change for setMonth will not help you find the problem any faster. Test failures for the wrong output occur just as often as test failures for errors, on exactly the same few days each year. The API change gives no advantage for the specific function this discussion started with in this regard. However, an approach that avoids inconsistency will, because in this particular instance, that is the real source of the problem. That is all.

In that context—the one you started with—it does not matter that there is often good reason to call Date() without arguments. The getMonthName function presented, effectively an array lookup, should produce the same output for any given input every time. It has no reason to engage in any behaviour that varies from day to day.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting the current date.

Bluntly, the code you presented fails precisely because it gets the current date where it should create a more specific one, and then fails to deal with that variation appropriately. You can keep distracting yourself with language design decisions, but that won’t help you avoid this particular type of problem in the future because that’s not where it is.

Getting the current date is often fine. In this specific instance, it is not. That is why the function doesn’t work. If you are missing that point, as much as I appreciate your enthusiasm in continuing the conversation, I will take the L (and the code that actually works) and move on.

Yes, and I’ve said that I agree with that in general. I know that this isn’t hypothetical; that’s exactly why I keep saying that throwing an error doesn’t help you find this bug early at all.

Even the silent weirdness can be caught by the most basic of tests checking output against input, but only if your function works the same way on every invocation.

Whether making a giant fuss (as you’d prefer) or making the best of it (as it actually does), the setMonth method always works the same way. My code always works the same way. The setDate suggestion makes the code always work the same way.

Code that always works the same way is easy to test.

If the day of the month is constant and incompatible with setMonth, whether there’s a thrown error or just an unwanted return value, a simple test will reveal that on every test run. If the day of the month is constant and always compatible with setMonth, the test will pass appropriately on every test run.

The bug in the code you originally presented comes from working differently over time. That’s why, most days, tests won’t identify the problem, even with a fussy, noisy API. Most testing days, the date will just happen to be compatible, and even the fussiest, noisiest API will carry on without any mention of the problem.

The reason the original code works differently over time has nothing to do with the silent, unexpected behaviour of setMonth. It’s entirely down to calling Date() without arguments, the entire point of which is to give different values over time. That call effectively introduces state that is not controlled by the function. And not bringing it under control is the real source of the bug.

Yes, absolutely, JavaScript sucks. Make F# the only supported web scripting language! But JavaScript’s suckiness is not the cause of this particular bug. JavaScript’s suckiness is not the reason this bug is hard to catch. The real problem lies in code that functions differently over time when it should (and could easily) be consistent. That’s what actually makes it hard to test.

Plenty of other languages and API design choices still allow code that functions that work differently over time, which is why, as justifiable as the complaints are in general, those factors are irrelevant for this particular bug. Write code that always works the same way and the problem goes away. That’s the real core of the issue.

Obviously, that’s easier said than done, and it’s irritating that neither loud errors nor most testing will help you in this regard, but that’s the way it is.

I agree with you that errors are useful feedback for coders who don’t know the ins and outs of an API. And every programmer is in that group at some point. But the difficulty in identifying this particular bug doesn’t stem from the API decisions.

Whether Dates throw an error, or work with what they’re given, has no bearing on the subtlety of this bug. Either way, tests that don’t replace Date will fail to identify it most of the time, and tests that do, based on its use within the function, would be called wrong-headed by many.

Either way, the bug only shows up at the end of months longer than the target month, and that infrequency has nothing to do with the peculiar design choices of the Date API. It stems exclusively from the evaluation of Date() called with no arguments returning different values at different times—behaviour you have not objected to, and which I’d expect to be considered entirely appropriate, in fact its very point—combined with an attempt to use that value, whatever it may be, without due consideration.

Since the month is the only part of interest, there’s no reason to allow the other parts to vary at all. Fixing them, as I suggested at the beginning of all this, is the simplest approach, but setting them first, as has also been suggested, would work too.

You can once again complain about JS design decisions and I’ll agree about many of them, but, as much as you might like it to be, and as annoying as so many of us think they often are, here it is beside the point. The perniciousness of this particular bug stems from unnecessarily calling a function with inconsistent output and then improperly processing that, instead of using a function call with always-predictable output.

I’ve tried to point that out in all the ways I can think of, so if it’s still not getting through, I give up. And if your acknowledgement was too subtle for my sleepy brain, and I’ve ended up overexplaining, then I’m sorry.

I was taught that side effects are not so one-sided, and that changing output in response to outside state (such as the date) is also a side effect, a side effect on the function, rather than a side effect of the function, but I’m happy to use other definitions so long as they’re commonly understood.

As I said before, though, even if JavaScript did throw an error as you’d prefer, it would still allow your function to have date-based problems. They’d be a bit noisier perhaps but no less present, and just as “well it’s worked fine so far”. And that’s because, as I keep saying, the real problem here is using a function with inconsistent output and not thoroughly dealing with the possibilities. An API change wouldn’t alter that. Most of the time it would still let you write bad code.

I also probably agree with you that errors are generally better than silence in response to bad input but, as someone else has said (more or less) it’s not always unreasonable to consider “31st [Month]” as 31 days after the end of [Previous Month]. Without throwing errors, this flexibility is possible. Perhaps the creators believed having to mutate the day-of-month first was an acceptable trade-off for that.

You’ve replied while I was editing, so see that regarding what I mean by side effects.

As far as throwing an error when you try to create “31st February”, this wouldn’t actually help much, since the error would still only occur on some days of the year, because your original code doesn’t account for the range of outputs from Date() when called without arguments.

To perform correctly, your code needs to normalise the day of the month, or just create the date more explicitly to begin with, but this is a calendrical issue, not a JavaScript one.

The rake has nothing to do with JS (which I agree is cursed, but for its own reasons, not this).

You have called a function in a way that does not give a consistent value (Date()). Such functions are hardly the preserve of JavaScript. You’ve failed to adequately deal with the range of values produced, with code that tries to insist that the “31st February” can be a meaningful date in February. You should accept that this is your mistake and learn to (better) avoid side effects where possible.

Also, the function isn’t side effecty since it doesn’t make implicit references outside its scope.

Edit responding to your edit:

Also, the function isn’t side effecty since it doesn’t make implicit references outside its scope.

The Date() function’s output varies according to something other than its input (and even the rest of your program). Using its output without accounting for that variation means that your function, as originally written, also gives inconsistent return values, varying according to something other than its input, because it does, in fact, reference something outside the function. If it did not, the results would only depend on the monthNumber argument, and would always be consistent. I don’t know what you call that, but I view it as a side effect.

As you have said, the rake is that months have different lengths, and you need to account for that. But that’s not one of JavaScript’s many issues.

You want to create the date “31st February”, but it’s JavaScript that’s cursed?

Write a less side-effecty function.

function getMonthName(monthNumber) {
    const date = new Date(2023, monthNumber - 1, 1);
    return date.toLocaleString([], { month: 'long' });
}

The output here lets us know that systemd is running the service file and starting the script just fine. The echoed GPU temperature is making it to the journal, but the gpuTemp variable isn’t being updated (staying at 0) because of a problem executing nvidia-settings. Specifically, it wants a display: “The control display is undefined”.

You could add a line to the service file:—

Environment = DISPLAY=:0

Although if echo DISPLAY in your terminal gives you a different value, use that. There’s a possibility that that will just push one error further down the line, but it’s something to try.

Alternatively/additionally, you could try changing the User= line to your own username to see if it picks up the environment your manual executions work with.

You aren’t the only one to run into problems trying to automate nvidia-settings. You might end up needing to track down an Xauthority file or use the display manager’s initialisation options.

“Instance” seems too jargon-y to me as well, and “proxy” is even worse. “Server” and “host” are probably a little more familiar, but are still technical language.

Confusion doesn’t stem from individual words; people need explanations and examples, but, as an alternative to “instance”, if you want to extend the “communities” metaphor, then “society” as a cluster of communities is a natural option, particularly since it relates to the widely understood concept of social media. Since most people using the Internet also know what a web “site” is, you could use the sibilant linguistic association to help cement the notion:—

Each society has its own web site, such as:

• aussie.zone, where the communities relate to Australia;
• programming.dev, where the communities discuss software development;
• and lemmy.film, where the communites are about movies.

You can choose which society you want to join, although some will ask you to fill out an application. Most societies have connections to others, meaning that you can discuss things with people who are part of different societies. Often, you’ll recognise them by their username saying that they’re at (@) another site. Not all societies get along with one another, so which one you join will also affect who you can talk with.

Each society has its own rules it expects you to follow, whether you are a member of that society or just visiting.

This kind of language seems more intuitive to me anyway, although when I’ve tried describing instances and federation before now, I’ve likened instances to countries:—

You choose somewhere to live (and you can move later if you want). If there’s a cross-border agreement, then you can send messages back and forth between people in each place.

but this has also meant stressing that your instance “country” doesn’t have to match where you physically live, so a more general term probably would have been more useful.

Did you literally use ~ as the start of the path in the Startup Applications GUI? That’s fine for the terminal—it will fill in /home/nosnahc (or whatever your home directory really is) for you—but, for the startup applications, you need to specify the path in full.

Try:—

/home/nosnahc/Application/legion-kb-rgb set -e Static -c 200,150,0,200,150,0,200,150,0,200,150,0

changing your username as necessary.

For someone seemingly so eager to try out new distros, I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned virtual machines. If the vibes are off, it’s a whole lot less disruptive to find out that way.

Your experience with drivers won’t be quite the same as a bare-metal installation, but checking out software shouldn’t be a problem.

See the network icon on the right-hand side of the bottom panel? What does it show when you click it?

• Is there a “Wireless” section?
• Does it have an activated checkbox next to it?
• Is there a little circle to the left of your wireless network name?
• And what percentage is showing for the link strength?

If the “Wireless” section is missing, go to the main Mint menu, run “Driver Manager” (under “Administration”), and see if it finds a WLAN driver for you. A working connection in the live environment isn’t necessarily transferred into the installation.

You wrote this ten minutes after being reminded that “consent” by children is nonsense, in what is still the most approved comment.

If you want to be a successful troll, you are going to have to learn to be less obvious. If you want to discuss topics in good faith, you are going to have to learn that this “just asking questions” approach makes you look like a troll.

We don’t allow slave labor like communism does.

You might want to recheck that constitution.

Oh, no, what am I saying? You don’t want to do that, because that would once more point out that you’re clueless in your assertions. Now I don’t want to read any more of them. And I’m free to turn you down, right?

Bad faith it is, then. Got it.

I know you deleted your earlier nonsense, but I saw some of it first, so I know how out of touch you are. You were wrong about how much wealth people have, but even after having that corrected, here you are with “It’s just how the world works”, another incorrect assertion that might describe your experience of the world, but is unrepresentative for humanity as a whole.

Most people don’t have the luxuries you so clearly take for granted. Turning down exploitative employment is only an option for those with money in reserve. Most people do not have that. Going somewhere else means separation from family and friends—easy enough for the thoroughly unlikable, but community is important to most members of a social species. And, anyway, that’s assuming there aren’t legal restrictions like immigration controls. As I said before, most lives are more constrained than yours, and that isn’t because those people are any less deserving. That is how the world works.

I’m going to suggest you read the article “Why Fascism is the Wave of the Future” by Edward Luttwak. Don’t worry, it’s just a warning, and it starts:—

That capitalism unobstructed by public regulations, cartels, monopolies, oligopolies, effective trade unions, cultural inhibitions or kinship obligations is the ultimate engine of economic growth is an old-hat truth

so it’s not commie propaganda. But it might relieve you of some of your misconceptions, since you clearly aren’t listening to us here. Of course, you could just carry on regardless, but then it’ll be just far too clear that you’re not acting in good faith.

This is the reasoning that leads to “if you think medicines are too expensive, stop buying them” with much the same problem of it not being quite that simple for the majority of humanity, whose “choices” are not as unconstrained as the ones you’re familiar with.