Phoenix LiveView is a framework where it keeps websocket open with the client and renders DOM changes server side and passes it to the client . Thus with fully server side development without any JS you can have almost full SPA experience.
 Have no experience with it, and only read about it some time ago, so don't judge me on the details, but the gist of the "LiveView" idea should be like that.
<%= live_patch "about", to: Routes.about_path(@socket, :index) %>
<a href="/about" data-phx-link="patch" data-phx-link-state="push">about</a>
Edited to fix glaring code sample error.
I don't see the point of going back to full server side, you have to scale more with more users.
The only benefit would be if it all worked without running JS in browsers, but it doesn't.
You can make it work when JS is disabled as well, you fall back to rendering regular HTML. It does require a little extra work, but it’s not insurmountable (e.g. using @conn instead of @socket).
>you have to scale more with more users
I might opt for additional optimizations once it gets bigger, but I’m not too worried about scaling Erlang processes.
I would much rather scale out my REST/Graph/RPC API instead of having to scale out a WS API.
And no, same hassle, same money spent. Thought about from the start server-side rendered pages are almost as cacheable as API responses will be. If you can't cache you're in for a world of expense at scale whichever way you go.
Only for iPhone owners?
What's the intended usage here? Take a photograph with your camera, transfer it to your computer, process it there, export it... then transfer it to your phone in order to post it? Why?
Glass already went to the trash bin for me. If you can barely support 1 app at 5usd/month price point what sort of longevity message is that sending?
The founder's name is like from The Onion article.
Apparently NOT Epik's personal army: far from it.
Why it's not mandatory to have some smallish engine attached, which at the end of satellite's life would lower the orbit enough until atmosphere picks it up and it will slow down significantly on it's own and burn up?
Is it because most satellites will not fully burn and actually hit the ground, i.e. it's liability?
Is it because of too great of a risk of crossing and colliding with a satellite in another orbit, i.e. liability again?
Is it because "attaching smallish engine" which will fire at satellite's end life is actually really hard thing to do?
IMO what should happen is we should ban putting satellites in high orbits. Satellites in low orbit decay naturally within a few years due to atmospheric drag. Satellites in high orbit will stay there essentially forever. More importantly, any collision in high orbit creates a permanent debris cloud which will spread over time and pollute orbit forever, being essentially impossible to clean up even with sci-fi technology. A collision in low orbit creates a similar debris cloud but it will be naturally cleaned up in a few years or less.
Putting satellites in high orbits made sense back when it was incredibly expensive to launch each satellite, because satellites last longer in high orbit and you don't need as many to cover an area. Also, stationary satellite dishes only work with geostationary satellites, and geostationary orbit is a very high orbit. But today we can use phased arrays to communicate with moving satellites without physically moving a dish, and SpaceX is about to drop launch prices through the floor with Starship, making it feasible to launch enough satellites to cover the Earth even in low orbit and replace them frequently. So to me, the space debris pollution risk of high orbit satellites can no longer be justified.
Why is this? From a layman's perspective it seems like gravity would be a massive form of help here and therefore lowering orbit should require much less fuel.
When a rocket launches to orbit, it only goes up a little bit, just to get out of the atmosphere, and then spends most of its time/fuel on going sideways to reach orbital velocity. If you watch a rocket launch you can see that the rocket starts to tip over and go sideways soon after leaving the pad. This is also why launching from a plane doesn't help you very much, because going up is the easy part of getting to orbit. A plane can't help you with the hard part of getting to 25,000 km/h sideways.
For an object in orbit to stop missing the Earth as it falls, it must slow down that sideways velocity, and gravity doesn't help with that.
You have to put energy into doing it, but the end result is just as much in balance with gravity as the starting point. So if you want it back where it was, you need to spent the same amount of energy to move it in exactly the same way in the opposite direction.
That's why a lopsided orbit is stable. It wouldn't be if down was easier than up.
The satellites we put in orbit will naturally have orbits which will decay in a matter of days to hundreds of millions of years. End of life is indeed a consideration for launch approval and many satellites do accelerate their decay with onboard thrust.
Some satellites can’t, would require too much thrust to get back to earth. Some push in to higher orbits to get out of the way for replacement satellites.
Some satellites break in orbit and can’t be controlled.
I don't see the problem.
Also people (pushed by oil lobby??) not only forget whole pipeline (pun intended) of petrol industry, but are very concerned that couple hundred kg of batteries is worse than tens of thousands of liters of petrol burned over lifetime of a vehicle.
What amazes me the most is how far it goes. From my anecdotal experience the smell goes 50-100km in radius depending on the weather.
If weather is "right" you can smell burning coal out of Katowice, though maybe smell comes from residential buildings as well, I am not sure. Maybe a local could provide better info.
Poor insulation is a problem as well.
It happens for baseless unconfirmed allegations against someone.. "Oh I have heard that he/she is a drug dealer and they are walking with a gun in their backyard" - and whole swat unit is sent - no questions asked. What the hell?
This happens to the super rich and famous too . SWAT team comes to the neighbourhood full of 20MM+ houses and is not second guessing what's going on?
 a bit too lazy to search, though there were infamous swattings of famous youtubers.
Is it not better for the police to wrongfully turn up to a potentially dangerous situation then to not and people get hurt or killed?
Police/SWAT do not turn up to assess the situation. It looks like they turn up to release their anger, aggression and "play" with their assault weapons. Swatters do this, because it will cause big material and mental losses to the victim, with a high chance of death . In this case police/swat is a "poor man's assassin".
It's very funny for me to read "Measures against swatting" from that wiki article (), when it happens only in US (and maybe Brazil). This does not happen in other 1st world country, because police is accountable for their ammunition and especially citizens shot. In US you can instigate fake raids and kill innocent people in their sleep, and nothing will happen to you as long as you say that you feared for your life. 
 I know I am stereotyping, though from western 1st world countries US is undoubtedly the leader in police violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
Not so long as they tend to leave a trail of citations for petty BS infractions nobody cares about and everyone resents wherever they go.
Though dunno about UX using it, probably not as streamlined as OpenSCAD, though maybe more powerful?