I was really taken by the ideas behind this language the first time I saw it come up here. I'm really happy to see that it's still moving forward despite getting a somewhat lackluster response initially. I'm also really happy to see C as an intermediate language. An excellent backend.
The best ideas are always simple and this is a great one. Keep up the good work! :)
As a right-handed person imagining writing left handed, I think the minimal inconvenience of learning to write with the other hand sounds like it far outweighs a lifetime of smeared ink. I don't think it would cause me too much inconvenience to switch hands and I would hardly call it cruel.
I've seen this claim and associated study pop up a couple of times. The study is done year on year and it's been amusing watching the increasingly long lengths they go to to hide the fact that their comparing _average_ rent for a _two bedroom_ apartment to the _minimum_ wage.
Anecdotally, this is simply not true. I lived in a fairly nice area next to my university for the better part of the past five years at well below the poverty level. (~$10,000) per year so far less than minimum wage.
We've been domesticating certain types of monkeys since before the pyramids my guy. They're not common pets in the western world, but we have been keeping them as pets for thousands of years.
This is likely because stabilizers don't make sense for the usecase of those in the southern US. Canoes there were typically used navigating between rivers, creeks, and lakes where the stabilizer would be cumbersome due to plant life and just size. Ocean going canoes, or canoes on large rivers don't encounter these problems in the same way making stabilizers worthwhile
And then the EV has to stop and charge for a couple hours. The ICE stops for gas for 10min. Also, check out records like the cross-country NY to LA cannonball run. Cars used there add additional gas tanks to extend range. I'd bet by the time you added enough fuel to a car to equate the weight of an EV battery the range would be significantly higher than that of the EV
Interested in why writing it in PHP made selling it a non-starter. I'd expect that if it provided value it wouldn't really matter much what it was written in.
I've started enjoying the game a lot more when I lowered my population limit (like to 10-15) and started playing smaller forts. Makes FPS death much less of a problem and means I can actually take care of my dwarves instead of rushing to keep up with population growth. Not breaching the caverns also helps a _lot_ with FPS.
I think it's a really important consideration of design that gets forgotten about in the name of "useability" and "discoverability". With a little practice a consistent keyboard interface is very fast. _Nobody_ is fast with a mouse.
Fair point if true, but without a source it sounds like speculation
I'd still say that by the end of january, there was absolutely plenty of reason to sell off stock. A reasonable person absolutely would have made that decision based on information that was already public.
Okay, really though, what information did they have access to that wasn't publicly available already? It's one thing to trade on the knowledge of a bill or piece of legislation that you're voting on, especially if you're a deciding vote, but unless I'm misunderstanding that didn't happen here. It doesn't seem like they had any information that wasn't public knowledge at that point. The whole economy was just slow to react to this. I've been paying attention to coronavirus news and honestly would have sold around the time they did had I had any exposure at the time. I get that it's easy to be mad about and makes a good headline, but I just don't see it. Maybe I'm just out of the loop though.
I agree that this comment wasn't _quite_ as substance based as many others in this thread, but I think it made an interesting comparison that I hadn't seen elsewhere. I've read the same thing said a hundred different ways in other comments and this one said something different. It's possible that this could be interpreted as uncivil, but It seemed _relatively_ politely put and I think the fact that it's a different perspective is reason enough for its existence.
Aaahhh! Yeah, that makes total sense. I was thinking about newly introduced symbols using let. I recently jumped from scheme to common lisp so I'm used to lets just shadowing other variables.
Most of the major scheme implementations I've used have had real dynamic scoping of some sort. I don't think it's very well supported in the standard, but they all seem to have it as a proper language feature.
I don't think so. _let_ is lexically scoped. What I was remembering was a syntax called parameterize in chicken scheme that would bind a set of values to a set of dynamic variables.
You can see an example of it here: https://github.com/caolan/snowy/blob/master/server.scm#L85
I don't think common lisp has an equivalent (and I'm pretty sure it's not part of rnrs in scheme), but it should be really easy to hack one together.
It's not possible for one person to ever have all of the money unless they have the possibility of not giving money away. Imagine the most optimistic state scenario just prior to hopefully having a state where one person has all the money. In this scenario everyone but our lucky rich guy has one dollar and the rich guy has all the rest. On state transition everyone gives the rich guy a dollar, but the rich guy still has to give a dollar to someone.
Neither does a beautiful hand-crafted glass bong, but there are many people willing to spend thousands of dollars on them and those dollars a perfectly legally useful.