dingosity

I looked into IO a while ago. It's a neat little language, but was a bit heavyweight for what I needed at the time.

Yikes. Yeah. Went on ebay thinking they couldn't possibly be THAT expensive. I was wrong. I wonder if there's a market for a $200 VT420 clone built with a FPGA that has a USB connection for a keyboard and a HDMI connector for a monitor?

I'm not sure why a video of a 60's TV show would be useful when you're trying to get an explanation of command line options for common posix commands. But you do you.

Nevermind. They're still getting the federal subsidies plus whatever tax deferral / forgiveness they negotiated with Texas.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/vw-rivian-nissan-bmw-lose-140...

I want someone who is:

a. not an idiot. b. understands business (product marketing, finance) concepts. c. doesn't need to be baby-sat.

Since you gave money to Elon Musk.

I believe it is being delayed so the company's founder can spend more time getting high.

So I could buy one Cybertruck or two Ford Mavericks for the same money. I'm going with the two mavericks. When one of them wears out I'll start using the other one.

Getting the government to subsidize their manufacturing operations is the oldest (and most un-original) move in the auto manufacturing game.

Um. So. They're going to invent new glass between now and the time they ship the Cybertruck?

It's the other people. It's always the other people.

Why do you think they're committed to a release?

Um... the impact resistant glass was not especially impact resistant at the unveiling, but you just go on believing that it was. Life is too short to get bummed out by consensus reality.

But... here's the thing... they have to build and deliver the cybertruck before they can recognize the revenue. That's the problem with building tangible assets. If he had only sold an NFT of a cybertruck with a vague promise you might get to exchange the NFT in the future for a physical truck, he would be rolling in the cash.

Not to mention... I think cybertruck owners only put down $100 as a deposit. They didn't pay the complete price for it. So Tesla has to actually make trucks before people will pay the majority of the sales price.

So... they're crisis actors? Maybe they're the same ones the government used for the school shootings?

All those poop and doge emojis make a ruckus.

In what way is the cybertruck moving forward? You still can't buy one and if you put money down on one, you're still not getting your cybertruck.

Reminds me of my Starlink experience: pay $100 to get on the waiting list, wait a while, pay an additional $500 to get the downlink terminal, wait, wait some more, try to figure out who I know who still works at SpaceX because there's no support contact info for people who have paid for a terminal but haven't gotten anything, send emails to about 10 people inside SpaceX until someone responds with an offer to refund $450, then take the offer, then wait for the refund, and wait for the refund and finally get the refund 3 months later. So I'm only out $150 from trying to subscribe to Starlink.

And at the end of the month, Elon's got to sell another chunk to fund the Twitter debt payment. But I'm sure he's playing 11th dimension chess and knows what he's doing. I'm sure when he doesn't have cheap debt to do a stock buy-back TSLA will go up instead of down.

The Cybertruck has to be released before it can fail in the market-place.

Tesla's 2023 marketing pitch should be "Hey, look! We can make vehicles without government subsidies!"

I don't get it. Google Search is effectively borked. Decades of anti-seo modifications have made it unusable (for instance, when I search for a compiler error message it would be nice to get hits related to that error message instead of an episode guide for Young Sheldon.) But Bard isn't a replacement. When I ask it to list QUIC implementations it would be nice if it doesn't try to give me a phone number for an animal shelter.

So... what's the assertion here? That a broken Bard is somehow better than a broken Google Search? I don't understand why. Neither gives me acceptable results.

Today I learned Colorado, California and Washington have "state tartans."

Sure. I mean, a pack of rabid raccoons can be your dev team. But just because it can be your dev team doesn't mean it should be your dev team.

I love the concept of getting links "out of the way," though I did it slightly differently. Instead of having links in the body of the text, links in the text of my docs tend to be links to citations in a reference section on the same page.

https://meadhbh.hamrick.rocks/v2/design/why_is_my_web_site_s...

There are SO many things that are just not quite right in Adi's video, but it's 90% there and a very decent precis of a machine most people have never heard of.

I take umbrage with the idea that the Lisa was confused about the "Application" metaphor when it really was sort of before Apps were a thing (unless you count Word Star and VisiCalc.) Eschewing the app as the central focus of user engagement is, IMHO, still something worth trying a few more times. But it's clear that it's harder than it looks.

When you watch that video, please remember the Lisa team wasn't competing against the IBM PC or the Apple Macintosh (heck, the Mac hadn't been released yet!) They were competing against the Xerox Star. The Lisa gives you about 50% of the Star's capability at about 12% the cost.

what was the last thing you built for fun?

man -k

Also... dude forgot all the things that happen before launch, like large cities are evacuated, martial law is declared, long distance phone system moves into "emergency mode," etc. Though if you're crazy enough to start a nuclear war, maybe you're crazy enough to not care about having your population annihilated.

I'm fine with someone making a living preparing for nuclear armageddon, but probably came to the same conclusion... can't take this content seriously, but mostly because it seems to be a 5 minute commercial.

meh. twitter is irrelevant.

2.3 to 2.5 - changed the syntax and semantics of the language by adding class variables. 2.5 to 2.7 - changed semantics by changing class variable to package variables.

Certainly you're not claiming Python hasn't made breaking changes in the syntax or semantics over the years?

I mean... this still compiles with my c compiler:

  ??=include <stdio.h>

  int main( argc, argv )
    int argc;
    char *argv[];
  ??<
    printf( "hello %d %s\n", argc, argv[0] );
  ??>
  

Though... gcc makes you add the -trigraph option.