seagull

I'm pretty sure the seagull photo was in the article - it was the second picture, labeled "Slide 37".

The smart money is not on "a camera will be the most lethal thing ever attached to a $100 electronic device the size of a seagull.

I see some sort of hieroglyphic character that looks like a seagull over a pistol over a sort of upside-down fishhook.

My wife thought that was really gross, but then I reminded her of the time that we saw a seagull eating another smaller seagull while it was still alive and still walking.

The author is a non-technical project manager, who's writing style sounds like the speech of a fly-by-night recruiter or seagull manager.

I recognize that seagull photo in that article, I'm therefore qualified to immediately dismiss any and all points made in it.

Hang a bandpass LC filter on the output then feed to a dipole?Disclaimer: not an active HAM, used to clean seagull crap off 500KHz distress aerials on small ships in the last century.

Both solutions obviously can't protect you from "flock of seagull style nested function code" but as you wrote: that's not a problem of the way someones does this-binding, it's a problem with the design.

Heck if you worked in goverment and had your upper managment changed every time you just about got used to the last lot and you pay the price for there mistakes and in effect seagull managment mentality.

It invalidates the ability to bind or use apply later, since everything is bound to that local variable self, and it's simply not needed and is probably used to avoid considerable use of bind, but using bind is only an issue when you write flock of seagull style nested function code.