(To address sibling comment: If I were colorblind, I would lead with that in any conversation about syntax highlighting; I am not colorblind.)
To answer the question: it's a feeling, like lots of things in software development. I tried "no syntax highlighting", found that I liked it, and I no longer use syntax highlighting. To say "specifically" how it's "better"... I'm not even saying it's better. "I like no-syntax-highlighting" is the statement I'm making (which, when it comes to syntax highlighting, is a statement a lot of people have issues with). So, from my personal experience, I take issue with the statement that no-syntax-highlighting is making things "difficult for the sake of it".
Try this out for analogy: I ate Red Baron pizzas every Friday night for 15 years, then I heard about homemade pizza 10 years ago. I tried making homemade pizza. It was good! ("I tried it and liked it") Now I only eat homemade pizza on Fridays. How is homemade pizza specifically better? It's better because I like it more. That's all there is to it. It's a preference.
(For the analogy to work, you have to like or at some point have liked Red Baron frozen pizzas. I happen to like them... the analogy is flawed though, I admit!)
(Let me preempt criticism that I'm comparing Red Baron frozen pizzas to syntax highlighting. I am not. It's only about the preference, not the object of the preference.)
Not op, but in my case a lifetime of colourblindness has desensitised me to colour as an indicator.
I have my editor configured with zero highlighting for keywords and syntactic elements. Admittedly, I have compilation/lint/syntax/type check errors set to invert the erroneous block, black background white text.
Syntax and keyword highlighting is just noise given I’ve been trained by decades of colourblind unfriendly interfaces
Syntax highlighting doesn't necessarily mean color, though. Using boldface to highlight keywords is another option that is traditional in some circles (e.g. Delphi has been doing that for 30 years now).
that's a very good reason to not use syntax highlighting. If that is what the other guys are dealing with, I withdraw my critique but I don't get the impression that is the case
I agree and don’t use any of that stuff—-except syntax highlighting. Why wouldn’t you? Color is a whole extra dimension it adds to the code that lets the eye notice errors more quickly and jump around faster.
Unpopular opinion apparently: I love it. I’ve been using it since beta 1 and it’s grown on me enormously. iOS 18 on my work iPhone felt incredibly dated and I was relieved when we could finally upgrade enterprise devices.
Why do you need to do embryo pre-screening for something that’s not genetic? Or do you think it still is genetic despite also thinking you know the specific trigger in your case?
Edit: are you thinking it’s genetic, but exacerbated by weed?
This is through the grapevine. I thought they said 20% likelihood, not 20% higher likelihood. But this isn’t me and I don’t know the numbers well.
I do know that this woman chose to not use her own eggs for their child. And you would think that going from 1-1.2% would not make you do that. Perhaps there is another variable involved that I am unaware of. Her sister developed it after their parents divorce in her 30s fwiw.
That is much, much higher than I am aware of - and my mother's sister has schizophrenia so I did look this up a while ago. And the outcome so far is 0 cases in 25 nieces and nephews, all of us in our mid twenties or older.
From my understanding of the science, weed can trigger schizophrenia in the genetically predisposed. Schizophrenia can be triggered by other environmental factors, so the embryo screening makes sense to lower the risk of the child getting it as well.
I wonder how many millions of productivity hours have been lost due to millions of people having to click through these stupid, useless prompts countless times per day.
Which does nothing for the "stupid people". I.e. the ones that we put these rules into place for. They'll do what I posted instead (or something else easily guessable and the cycle continues - technological solution to a people problem, i.e. doesn't work)
It may be that they've discovered that people feel more comfortable with bank logins taking a while. Maybe if it's too snappy people feel like it's insecure. Sort of like how tax software intentionally adds loading screens to make people feel like it's doing a lot of work behind the scenes even though it's essentially a glorified spreadsheet with instant calculations.
I have no data on this, purely just a theory as to why they may not feel an incentive to make login feel faster.
I wouldn't bother. Nobody really cares about privacy-first. The HN audience is one that you might expect to care strongly about privacy, and yet even here many still prefer to use the Android/Google ecosystem because it's more customizable and Not Apple, over the highly private Apple ecosystem. Privacy just isn't that many people's first concern.
It’s really strange reading the words of such an intelligent person beginning to understand something back then that is so fundamental today that even laypeople understand it more scientifically. Really weird, but really cool to get a peek back into a scientific mind in the 1700s.
> even laypeople understand it more scientifically
Laypeople use more scientific-sounding words, sure, but what more scientific way is there to understand something than to have discovered it yourself through experiment?
Along similar lines, I recently learned about an early nuclear physics textbook written by George Gamow. The first edition came out in 1931, and the preface of the second edition in 1937 describes how the book had to be completely written because the state of knowledge had changed so radically in those few years -- most notably, by the discovery of the neutron and of induced radioactivity.
It's fun to think about a time when this stuff that we now take for granted as basic physics was not just new and poorly understood, but the forefront of knowledge was advancing so rapidly.
I haven't been able to find an online copy of the 1931 edition, but the 1937 edition is called Structure of Atomic Nuclei and Nuclear Transformations, and it's available through the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501245
Is that official? In spanish, decades ago, the word for battery was "Pila"
"Pila" is a heap of countable physical units, either stacked or disordered. But pila is commonly a fixture for liquids, like septic tank is pila séptica
And batteries were mostly lead-acid. Hence, a pile for/of acid.
The main way that inductors function is by storing energy in a magnetic field, exactly analogous to the way capacitors store energy in an electric field.
If you apply a constant current to a capacitor, the voltage across the capacitor will increase linearly as the capacitor stores energy in the electric field.
If you apply a constant voltage to an inductor, the current through the inductor will increase linearly as the inductor stores energy in the magnetic field.
Perhaps part of why the intuition can break down is that in real life, inductors tend to be much "leakier" energy storage devices than capacitors. If you store some energy in an inductor and then change the voltage across it to zero (practically: short its terminals together), in theory a perfect inductor will maintain a constant current forever and the energy stored does not change. In practice inductors (with an exception for things like superconducting magnets) are made from wire that has a resistance, and so the current in a real shorted inductor will eventually decay to zero. This means that in practical terms inductors are mostly only useful for short term energy storage. On the other hand, real-life insulating materials (like air, vacuum, or Teflon) can can be pretty close to perfect insulators allowing real capacitors to store energy more or less indefinitely... certainly on timescales of years.
Seems like capacitors, inductors and batteries differ only quantitively in their response curves, not in qualitatively? As in they all do different things to the circuit on the voltage, amperage and time axis? We would need separate words for them, but accumulators seems like a decent umbrella.
Indeed! I love reading Benjamin Franklin for exaclty that. If you haven't read it, Walter Isaacson's biography on Franklin is absolutely fascinating. Brilliant, hilarious, driven, and wildly accomplished. The dude was (IMHO) one of the most interesting humans to have ever lived. Highly recommend.
This was how the 18th Century worked. In the 19th Century mathematical language became rigorous and formal, better able to handle more complex constructions accurately, but harder for lay people to learn, as it became a new language.
Well... going by the Fermi biography and the first few chapters of The Idea Factory (about Bell Labs) I would think this is what it always sounds like in the early stages of humans discovering a new part of nature.
It's just that our most recent theories have been so rich that we have happened to discover many things theoretically before we find them in real life. (Theory has preceded practice in recent decades, rather than the other way around which is historically more common.) I'm not sure this will always be so, it might be a temporary leap.
reply