NOTE: this is out of date - refer to moby/moby#9694
Here is a preview build of two new features we’re working on concurrently: container grouping (docker groups) and stack composition (docker up). Together, they will eventually form a complete replacement for Fig.
| #!/usr/bin/env python | |
| """Edit a file in the host nvim instance.""" | |
| import os | |
| import sys | |
| from neovim import attach | |
| args = sys.argv[1:] | |
| if not args: | |
| print "Usage: {} <filename> ...".format(sys.argv[0]) |
| // Promise.all is good for executing many promises at once | |
| Promise.all([ | |
| promise1, | |
| promise2 | |
| ]); | |
| // Promise.resolve is good for wrapping synchronous code | |
| Promise.resolve().then(function () { | |
| if (somethingIsNotRight()) { | |
| throw new Error("I will be rejected asynchronously!"); |
All of the below properties or methods, when requested/called in JavaScript, will trigger the browser to synchronously calculate the style and layout*. This is also called reflow or layout thrashing, and is common performance bottleneck.
Generally, all APIs that synchronously provide layout metrics will trigger forced reflow / layout. Read on for additional cases and details.
elem.offsetLeft, elem.offsetTop, elem.offsetWidth, elem.offsetHeight, elem.offsetParent
| function mapValues(obj, fn) { | |
| return Object.keys(obj).reduce((result, key) => { | |
| result[key] = fn(obj[key], key); | |
| return result; | |
| }, {}); | |
| } | |
| function pick(obj, fn) { | |
| return Object.keys(obj).reduce((result, key) => { | |
| if (fn(obj[key])) { |
JD Maturen, 2016/07/05, San Francisco, CA
As has been much discussed, stock options as used today are not a practical or reliable way of compensating employees of fast growing startups. With an often high strike price, a large tax burden on execution due to AMT, and a 90 day execution window after leaving the company many share options are left unexecuted.
There have been a variety of proposed modifications to how equity is distributed to address these issues for individual employees. However, there hasn't been much discussion of how these modifications will change overall ownership dynamics of startups. In this post we'll dive into the situation as it stands today where there is very near 100% equity loss when employees leave companies pre-exit and then we'll look at what would happen if there were instead a 0% loss rate.
What we'll see is that employees gain nearly 3-fold, while both founders and investors – particularly early investors – get dilute
| -- show running queries (pre 9.2) | |
| SELECT procpid, age(query_start, clock_timestamp()), usename, current_query | |
| FROM pg_stat_activity | |
| WHERE current_query != '<IDLE>' AND current_query NOT ILIKE '%pg_stat_activity%' | |
| ORDER BY query_start desc; | |
| -- show running queries (9.2) | |
| SELECT pid, age(query_start, clock_timestamp()), usename, query | |
| FROM pg_stat_activity | |
| WHERE query != '<IDLE>' AND query NOT ILIKE '%pg_stat_activity%' |