It's really weird to come across such articles, because they always add this mystic to these cultures that actually ends up coming across as the generic "in touch with nature" noble savage archetype
I mean, weren’t they? My kids can name more superheroes and Pokémon than animals and plants. My neighbors don’t notice when it doesn’t rain in March and April (when there should be 22 rainy days) and get annoyed when it does because it ruins the nice weather.
Why would your neighbors worry about rain, unless they are farmers or otherwise directly impacted?
We've generally abandoned "being in touch with nature" for focusing on specific niches, and it's so incredibly more efficient that you can have large groups of people who focus on systems based on purely made up things, like sports.
If they both needed the probability of rain three days from now, who do you think would fare better, the ancients with their ancient wisdom, or your neighbors with modern sensors and meteorological models?
You may be thinking about a short term need only. Longer term (annual and more) if you are in a state that is susceptible to drought and wildfires, you would worry about the lack of rain during a period when it is supposed to rain. The rain fills aquifers and increases soil moisture content which carry you through the dry season.
In general, yes. But most advanced societies delegate these topics because it's very inefficient if you and everyone else studies wild fires, rain patterns, deer impact on soil compression and what not -- it'll be much more efficient if a few study it deeply and then present the results and concrete actions.
Division of labor goes for division of scientific labor, too.
Granted, there seems to be an increasing trust issue in taking those results as true, but that's a separate issue.
Oooh yes let’s be efficient. Only thing that’s important. No curiosity, sense of awe or belonging to something greater. Let’s do away with art unless it’s funded by Netflix and has a direct effect on subscription numbers. We could and should have both.
Sure, but one is much more important than the other. You can commit 50% of your resources as a society towards art and religion and the other half to science and production, and your standard of living will be much lower than if you committed 10% towards art and religion.
The disconnect between observation and understanding is the whole point; without western ideas like trends, records, and measurement, you can have no better understanding than, "sometimes wet, sometimes not".
The only part in tune with nature is that in bad periods the population dies back.
The Spanish colonists would have no problems with those things though, they just were out of their element there but people were in touch with nature almost everywhere until very recently.
The beauty of kotlin is they don't need to.
I use kotlin on the backend (never did android development). It's amazing. Better version of java than java. Use any and all java libraries transparently (there's nothing to change or do), heck you can even have the java and kotlin in the same codebase (something I haven't really done, but tried it for fun)
Java and Kotlin both compile down to .class Java bytecode.
Suspend functions appear as regular JVM methods with an extra Continuation parameter. Tools like runBlocking make them straightforward to call from Java.
My main point was that you can use Java code as is without modifications from Kotlin, and that if you wanted you could have Java code in your project and it will work just fine. Of course if you wanna start calling co-routines from the Java part of your project to the Kotlin part, hey that's up to you.
Yes. That's surprising. Community events for Free Pascal have been very healthy and growing. Some old people from the community have died in recent years, but somehow even more new people showed up. It's not big, but the community of Delphi and Free Pascal is very active.
It's a good well worn tactic. You list in very high detail every single step of any process you don't like. It makes that process seem overly complex, then you can present your alternative and it sounds way simpler.
For example, making a sandwich: You have to retrieve exactly two slices of bread after finding the loaf in the fridge. Apply butter uniformly after finding the appropriate knife, be sure to apply about a 2.1mm level of coating. After all of that you will still need to ensure you've calibrated the toaster!"
Pretty much. In this case, WebSockets is simpler to implement than HTTP2; it's closer to raw TCP, you just send and receive raw packets... It's objectively simpler, more efficient and more flexible.
It's a tough sell to convince me that a protocol which was designed primarily for resource transfer via a strict, stateless request-response mode of interaction, with server push tacked on top as an afterthought is simpler than something which was built from the ground up to be bidirectional.
Aren't websockets the only way to some sort of actual multi-core and threaded code in JavaScript, or is it still subject to the single background thread limitation and it just runs like node does?
I think we need a function that returns the correct butter height given the dimensions of the input bread. We may also need an object containing different kinds of bread and the ideal amount of butter for each depending on the absorbtion characteristics of the bread, etc. The user's preference for butter might also need to be another parameter.
Absolutely. The author conveniently leaves out the benefit that websockets enable ditching the frontend js code--included is the library the author is plugging. The backend shouldn't send back an error message to the frontend for rendering, but, instead, a rendered view.
Am I the only one in the world who absolutely loves the Magic Mouse. Aside from gaming it's just so comfortable, scrolling is a dream with inertia no one else has figured out how to mimic, and the gestures are natural.
Plus horizontally scrolling on long lines of code (or terminal output) is unbeatable.
I like the magic mouse a lot too.
before this one, I used the dell mouse for years, have to bent the wrist. and hurt over time. after switching to apple magic mouse. it has been no problem for years !
I find the Magic Mouse a bit too small for my hand, but the touch surface inertial scrolling is so good I wouldn't switch to anything else on that basis alone.
It's likely The LG monitor at the time was the only retina monitor available. The Cinema Display was rather old, and newer Apple displays were not yet released
> It would be a long time until Swift is even remotely ready for something like this and I don’t feel there is a burning need to have “yet another wasm platform”.
I mean, well, it actually already exists? It's been around for a long time and works pretty great, with multithreading, access to JS objects, etc. The author of the linked thread topic is the original author of it.
I think that’s WASI Preview 1 that’s currently supported by swiftwasm (and I don’t think the spec implementation is even complete), not the current WASI 0.2. Preview 1 was the current status quo about 2 years ago.
Writing WASM in Swift so it can only be run by a Swift runtime also misses out on a huge aspect of that “bring your language” approach to wasm. It should support enough of the spec so a current wasm binary compiled from say Go can be executed in a WASI runtime powered by Swift and vis-versa. It’s a long way to get there.
Why are they framing it as a proposal if it's done? (if this comes across as Socratic, it is unintentional, I genuinely don't understand why the author would be posting a proposal when it is done)
EDIT: My naive reading of https://github.com/swiftwasm/swift/issues is there's a lot, lot, to go. TL;DR: open from 2021, stdio FILE not available in WASILibc. Long version, filed in 2020 and open: "Pointers needed on WASILibc", "Make the toolchain work without Xcode installed", "Enable libdispatch or provide stubs for it", 2022 "canImport(Dispatch) is wrongly truthy on WASI target", "wasm lacks signal support" (broke/regression in Sept. 2024, still open)
Imagine you all cost 100k/year to employ by the larger company (since you all apparently don't make money).
Then imagine you are all now cost 105k a year to the parent company.
It's no difference.