atheism is dumb, whoever thought that opposing a metaphysical concept that lies way too close to the heart of those who believe in it was a good idea to curb religious influence wasn't on their brightest day.
Determining the lack of evidence of connection between religious entities and a supposed god is possible, saying a concept as ill defined as "god" does not exist doesn't even make sense to me.
I think LSD gives you that feeling of unity, that everything makes sense, and so, yes, you may feel enlightened by trivial stuff.
I don't think LSD puts ideas in your head, it just gives you a different perspective over the stuff that's already there.
So it's a silly idea to believe it'll enlighten you by itself, but if you've been reading poetry, philosophy, if you're in contact with nature it may help you see things you didn't see or realize before, which is enlightening.
I think that's one of the properties that help with depression/anxiety since it may help you deal with trauma or with inconsistencies in your own personality that you have repressed, ignored or just don't know how to deal with.
How do you "solve" a loved one dying or being diagnosed with terminal cancer, for example? Sometimes the issue is a fundamental fact of life that can't be "solved". Psychedelics can help you come to peace with these things and let you live a less painful life (obviously this isn't true for everyone but there are many studies that show it helps for a lot of people).
Alcohol does not make you come to peace with such things, it just makes you forget for a time. Then you eventually have to deal with it again.
Even if the Python solution is vastly superior, there is significantly more people who know or want to learn Javascript, so if your game is to sell stuff, it's only reasonable to pick the bigger market, and the kind of complexity you're talking about is very common to modern Javascript.
Most devs know some Javascript and as complex as the current js ecosystem is, it still seems like those devs would prefer to deal with some libs in a language they already know rather than learn a completely new one.
I didn't like Elixir's syntax at first and I like Erlang's syntax, but Elixir is a lot more than "Erlang in rubyesque syntax" it's a brand.
Elixir is a well-thought ecosystem designed by professional developers, it includes tooling(mix), documentation(hexdocs) and most important of all: an excellent community and community support. Plataformatec often posts about design decisions and best practices and it doesn't take long till you hit a forum post or github issue or SO question answered by Jose Valim, Elixir's creator or Chris McCord, responsible for Phoenix.
You can very easily use Erlang code in Elixir projects, so I think it's worth taking a look.
well if you're going into it to stop smoking then yes, but if you're a kid trying out a new toy then probably not, also as it's pretty much a gadget people switch devices, settings and liquids all the time, new is fun.
This is the thing. It costs a lot to get a nice vape and it is also not cheap from an effort / money to maintain compared to cigs which you just throw on the ground. It is almost a hobby-level undertaking.
People do switch juices all the time so it is common to have different bottles of varying quantities sitting around.
If you're just vaping with whatever you can get your hands on and conceal as presumably teens are, I doubt they have a nice repeatable setup with a trigger counter.
But regardless, there are none of these confusing points in branded cigarettes. One cigarette is one cigarette end of story.
eh, it seems you got it backwards, pg's main point seem to me to be productiveness, he even talks about python being one of the best(lispier) of the mainstream languages, so in that context python would be more powerful than asm and not the other way around.
Substitute "productivity" there for power and I think the point still stands. PG sees a hierarchy of languages based on some inherent goodness of the language - and surprise, surprise, his favourite language, Lisp, is on top. I think that's BS. How good a language is depends more on the problem than some inherent quality of the language.
I think it's pretty hard to get past the fact that a term like "Blub" clearly indicates that PG feels that he's a superior, higher class programmer than those who use "Blub" languages.
You say it depends on the problem you're solving, but if you turn around and look at the problems people are solving, you could easily see them falling largely into a few common classes.
Like, we all will admit that no natural language is inherently better than any other, but yet we still recommend that programmers learn English -- the quality of the language may not be inherent to the language, but it could be inherent to the context in which the language exists.
It's not what PG precisely said that matters, it's the intent and notion behind it, which is misguided (and different people could use it to attribute it to asm or idris or whatever -- the notion of the hierarchy of languages that is concrete and task-independent).
I think it can't be reduced to that, I think a more important aspect is expressiveness, which isn't exactly terseness, I think some historical memory is pertinent here as even classic "blub" languages such as java have adopted plenty of functional characteristics since then, so the options available were very different.
The problem with 'expressiveness' is that beyond a certain point, the cognitive load imposed by reading the code exceeds any benefit from the increased density and abstraction. You basically have to decompress the code in your head in order to comprehend it in any useful way.
Only if it's written so badly that it leaks, or you need to modify that particular abstraction. In all other cases, you should be able to read the code easily and understand what it expresses without the need for exploring underlying layers of abstraction.
I agree it's hard to write good abstractions, but the problem isn't really in Lisp per se - it's just that being able to express any abstraction you want cleanly makes you realize that coming up with correct abstractions is very hard mental work. You may refrain from doing it, but Lisp at least gives you the option.
Well, yes there is a difference, evolution works by natural selection since nature is incredibly smart and the only changes that get actualized are those that are beneficial for survival and reproduction and those that do not hinder it.
Artificially controlled selective breeding doesn't mean evolution, take for example bulldogs which have been overbred by humans that prioritized looks, so a modern bulldog's health is frail compared to its ancestors, hardly what one would call evolution.
But on the elephants case, yes it is evolution as human interference seems to be mostly as a "regular" predator.
It depends on what you consider environment. We are part of the environment for those animals, and they have evolved to increase survival and reproduction in this environment that contains us.
The bulldog health might be frail, but as a species it thrives in this environment containing us, as you can find them all around the world. The wellbeing of the individual is not an objective of evolution, just increasing survival and reproduction in a particular environment.
Clearly I'm at fault here, my comment was pure garbage, I'm sorry(I'm not being sarcastic).
But I think there's a valid point there amid the nonsense, I see a qualitative difference between natural selection such as the elephants losing their tusks and selective breeding such as the bulldog example.
Mainly due to the fact that on the first case elephants are still choosing their partners and on the latter we're forcing dogs to mate which I see as a conscious interference in the process of natural selection.
Yes, bulldogs still exist, but were we to go extinct and they'd probably go with us as our selective breeding made them dependent on our technology which I think is true for some of the domesticated animals at least.
I say nature, as in natural selection, is incredibly smart because it seems to be a system to act based on pure, cold, although short sighted logic. The advantage our intelligence have over nature's, in my perspective, is long term planning, but given a bigger context there's no objective base to claim that's actually smarter as we might be running towards our own extinction, and I believe life will survive us.
No, nature is not smart. If some feature helps you survive - even if it would be 'judged' bad in some other context - it is being selected for. That's evolution
> a modern bulldog's health is frail compared to its ancestors, hardly what one would call evolution.
And yet here it is, survived. The difference between selective breeding and evolution is just nuance and speed really, from the fact that it has some intelligent being with 'purpose' selecting deliberately.
Yay for webpack as default.
My perception of phoenix is not only that it is the best in class but that it also keeps getting better instead of bloated.
Not to take away from your excitement or the validity of the change, but non frontenders find webpack rather bloated. To be fair, I’ve met more than one front-end developer with the same perception.
There's no panacea when it comes to front-end build tools, but the webpack 4 release vastly improved configuration and docs, which was a big reason for us to make the jump. We've maintained the old brunch workflow for non-js pros, where you place js in assets/js and css in assets/css and things Just Work™, so folks fond of the old brunch way can continue to handle assets exactly as before, but webpack will be used underneath. I also like to think we now strike a nice balance between zero hassle asset bundling and professional front-end engineers using phx.new and quickly getting to work.
As a professional front-end engineer I thank you. The old system was a constant pain point for me. Every time I started a new Phoenix project I agonized over how to integrate the front-end workflow I liked with Phoenix. This will be a big productivity win for me.
> Not to take away from your excitement or the validity of the change, but non frontenders find webpack rather bloated. To be fair, I’ve met more than one front-end developer with the same perception.
Regardless it still seems to be the build system most major platforms and large orgs are choosing to integrate with (for better or worse). Which comes with its own benefits.
It might not be the best build system for a raw new js project but in terms of broad support, stability, adoption rates, 'no one ever got fired for choosing IBM', etc it seems to be the system of choice.
Those were two separate points, I should have used a linebreak there in retrospect.
My point was that if you look at the changes and new features, all of it seems to me as stuff that improves core functionality, there's no feature creep.
Yay webpack because that's what I use so less work for me next time I start a new phoenix project (:
Determining the lack of evidence of connection between religious entities and a supposed god is possible, saying a concept as ill defined as "god" does not exist doesn't even make sense to me.