> A 200 OK response tells you the request was accepted. It tells you nothing about what actually happened after.

???

From [0]:

> The HTTP 200 OK successful response status code indicates that a request has succeeded.

From [1]:

> The HTTP 202 Accepted successful response status code indicates that a request has been accepted for processing, but processing has not been completed or may not have started.

[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/... [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/...

Authors point is something like this:

Users expect that their ticket been successfully purchased when the gray "Buy" button turned "Green! Yay", this is "the system" or whatever they call it. Just because the request went to backend and returned 200 OK doesn't necessarily mean that everything after that successfully completed, maybe the payment webhook was badly configured, and so on.

It seems pretty clear to me that this is what the author means and are talking about. But I'm not entirely why they're talking about this, or if there is any further point beyond just the "technically correct but ultimately not important" part.

It's the same sort of pedantry as correcting someone's use of their/there/they're. Yes, technically you're correct in what you're talking about, but arguing minutiae that is probably not relevant to the overall discussion.

Current GraphQL-over-HTTP recommends using 200 OK when returning non-successful properly defined reponses:

- §6.4.1 (application/json): "The server SHOULD use the 200 status code for every response to a well-formed GraphQL-over-HTTP request, independent of any GraphQL request error or GraphQL field error raised."

There what is?

Do you mean the flamethrower guitar? That was real.

I'm talking about the end of the flamethrower guy when the rig wrecks. There's a bunch of debris that flies around including the steering wheel that perfectly comes at camera spinning exactly times so the center wipes the frame. That sequence has lots of CG

It doesn’t.

The pen is the material.

Some alternative reporting:

https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-testifies-social...

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/mark-zucke...

Fascinating how differently Musk's testimony is portrayed in the WSJ vs by Rolling Stone.

@dang at least the RS story vs. paywall please.

There's a difference between "things you are interested in" and "things that will make you addicted".

> The Moroun family - the American owners of the neighbouring Ambassador Bridge that also connects Detroit to Canada - appealed to Trump during his first term to stop construction of the new bridge, arguing that it infringed on their exclusive ability to collect tolls.

Ah, that’s why he cares.

Even better, he supported it during his first term.

> Trump and then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a joint statement saying the bridge was a "vital economic link" between the countries.

> A subset of the population doesn't have self control? Ban it everyone. Even if it's a wildly popular form of entertainment

Like gambling?

or cigarettes?

Or drugs?

Or coffee?

The drug so popular no one thinks of it as a drug any more.

"One of these things is not like the others..."

What are the harmful effects of a full blown coffee addiction? Headaches?

What are the effects of an LSD addiction? Oh you can't, because LSD is anti–addictive. But it's still schedule 1 while coffee is uncontrolled.

Or sugar?

Cigarettes are drugs

You can only let that go so far, because at the end of the day you need to pay the military to keep you in power.

In the long run we're all dead. In the meantime, NK is still standing.

The rules are rather different when your economy is mostly oil - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrostate