drpixie

Objects are not serialised and stored in files, they exist (only) as the fundamental entity of the OS. These objects are not read/saved from disk, they exist until destroyed and are managed transparently by the OS - similar to the manner to which virtual memory pages are transparently managed by Unix/Linux.

Objects represent reasonably high level entities, perhaps images, sounds, etc, but probably not individual integers or strings. Objects may reference ("contain") other objects.

Objects are strongly typed and implement common sets of abilities. All picture objects can show themselves, duplicate themselves, etc.

But lets stay away from adding another layer for our nice new abstraction. A new layer means the old ones are still there are will be used because programmers are lazy. It's usually easier to reuse someone else's code (that access the old layers) or reuse old methods and algorithms. In both cases, we're moving back towards the old stuff, the stuff we want to leave behind.

It works but it's incredibly heavyweight. For every login you use an entire email infrastructure, doing all the email "security" processes. That a great deal of work.

Despite storage and transmission being very cheap, it is almost impossable to find many classic films, music, and books. Aparently it is legitimate can claim a "loss" if they cease to sell an item (presumably having destroyed the master copy).

It might make perfect commercial sense to drop low selling items and claim large tax losses, it may be legal, but how is this moral? For classic items, this is nothing less than destroying cultural artifacts.

(This is yet another case where modern copyright is out of step with modern morals and expectations. Personally, I'm for short copyright terms, perhaps requiring explicit registration, and requiring licence holders to maintain a copy for historical purposes - perhaps in some kind of escrow at the internet archive.)

While less problematic at small sites, where it will be assumed that all instances are of the same "dialect", this commonly causes problems at large sites and for internationalization.

Conflicts between versions and/or dialects may be limited to identifier conflicts ("colour" v "color"), may involve terms not recognized by multiple parties, terms with conflicting meaning ("chaps"), or terms unacceptable to some parties ("toilet" v "bathroom") which break the "conversation".

Been my position for quite some time. But you can imagine it doesn't go down well on HN. Here latest language/machine/etc is of great interest, and keeping-up-with-the-xxxs is normally seen as vital :(

Most of the "smart" features just seem to get in th way :(

Meaning: you used sensible types (and had sensible libraries) and once the obvious compile-time errors were fixed, there would be zero bugs found in testing or in live!

I like the flexibility of python, but I know that every substantial program has untested pathways that will fail when they come to be exercised :(

Enshittification is a deliberate process: provide a (typically cheap/free) service, (dominate the field,) lock users into it, and exploit to the maximum possible in the short term, ultimately destroying the service.

Enshittification is a deliberate process: provide a (typically cheap/free) service, dominate the field, lock users into it, and exploit to the maximum possible in the short term, ultimately destroying the service.

(and it wasn't that one guy.)

Like in the back of a book, or an old subject based card catalogue ... Dewy-decimalise the web :)

I've always felt that an index by subject would be more useful than string-match based searching. Of course, the index might rank links within each sub-sub--sub-sub...category with something like the original page-rank.

Now if Yahoo (or whoever) could avoid the enshitification trap ... imagine what a fabulous resource that could be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_stations

And "I do not think that [comment] means what you think it means." You seem to think that I see an upside to nuclear power. Read the comment.

Best statement against 1) advertising, and 2) copyright, that I can imagine.

I don't see nuclear proponents comparing potential cost (say $10T) against benefit (power produced during plant's lifetime - optimistically $10B (over 30 years). That's 1000:1 against.

By wikipedia, there are about 170 nuclear power plants and have been 6 accidents costing over $1B - approximately 1 in 30 plants have had very expensive accidents.

Those odds don't make sense for any country. Though they might make sense for an investor, knowing that they won't be required to pay those big costs - they might win and (in the event of a disaster) they only loose their investment. Perhaps if they have to guarantee the $10T potential costs, they'd look realistically at the "investment".

I'm told I got 8,760,000,000 "results" but only get to see 1 page of 45 links (some being ads). The "more" page shows only 8 recipes, another "more" another 8 recipes, then my only choice is "less"!

Of 9 billion results, I can see only 60.

Google is broken. I thought it would happen, but I did think they would last longer than this.

Sounds a little like the old Linux v Windows or the PC v Mac debate - lots of fuss and really comes down to personal preferences.