simplotek

> Isn’t using James Gosling example as a question a fallacy in argument (i.e., loaded question)?

No, it's a clear way to refute the absurd argument that a company struggling or even failing automatically means all their engineers are incompetent morons.

It's pathetic how there are people in this thread throwing blanket accusations of incompetence at engineers being laid off, primarily because they were far better paid and had far better jobs than them. It reeks of envy, and complete lack of empathy.

I don't know if the article changed its clickbaity headline, but I definitely see other news sources using the headline "US warship collides with tugboat in disastrous launch".

Case in point:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/uss-clevel...

All I can say is that, after watching the vid, "disastrous launch" is not how I would describe it.

This seems to be the result of the clickbaity spirit that brought us "X destroys Y" when referring to uneventful disagreements.

> Concepts seem great, but do they/will they always depend on using templates?

I don't get your question. By definition, C++'s concepts are requirements specified on template arguments. Do you foresee any scenario where requirements on template arguments should not be used with templates?

> You have to re-architect things so that the UI is optimistic, commits to a local database and that local database is synced up to the server when you come online.

I'm not sure you got the point. The design guideline that "Offline Is Just Online with Extreme Latency" already reflects very specific architectural requirements, and state transitions in the application life cycle. We're talking event-driven architectures, batching events, flushing events in offline/online transitions or even when minimizing windows, pulling events when going online, etc etc etc.

I'd go even further and claim that this whole "pessimistic vs optimistic UI" thing is just "adequate vs broken UI design",regardless whether the app is even expected to go online.

> This is not really a merger because the other company is a “blank check” holding company (a.k.a. SPAC).

This reads like a non sequitur. The corporate structure is irrelevant if there is a radical change affecting how strategic decisions are made regarding their products and their userbase.

> I agree with both of you - there's no reason why software should be as inefficient as it is,

Except that it is, and it tends to be development speed.

For example, real world React apps tend to suffer a lot from performance issues, specially when compared with vanilla html+javascript or even the old but true server-side rendered HTML, but it also makes it trivial to implement and rewrite complex UIs that UX designers love to put together. Would it make sense to argue for performance options which lead to productivity hits?

> To do that the team needs experience with performance, and most of internet programmer culture is just to lecture people about how programmers are cheaper than hardware if anyone asks or talks about performance.

But this is an absolute truth, isn't it?

I mean, what's more important to your business: avoid the need to launch an EC2 instance, or implement that user flow in one day instead of one week? Do you care if it takes 50ms to show your dialog box instead of 40ms? Do you really care if you pass all your objects by value, with a few deep copies, instead of passing everything by reference?

The truth of the matter is that in general all performance bottlenecks are caused by software architecture and algorithms, not "clean code" implementations.

> The hard part is knowing what "stupidly inefficient things" are.

There are things that are quite obvious non-critical in terms of performance.

One time I had a junior engineer insisting in a PR that we should use a few low-level performance tricks in a code because it was fast, and the code was to open a dialog box.

Also, in general performance bottlenecks are caused by architectural and algorithmic choices, not readability choices. If we're in a domain where, say, inheritance is an unacceptable performance bottleneck and we need to unroll loops and we can't extract functions because the cost of pushing the call stack is prohibitive... We are in an extremely performance-sensitive part of the code.

But most of the time we're far from any of that.

> This is by design in a democracy.

I'm not sure I agree. It's one thing to claim that opinions changed, but an entirely different thing to feign support for topics you have no intention or expectation to act upon just because it might help you poll better. This last one is diametrically opposed to "the will of the people".

> Team work makes the dream work.

Except there is no team, and people dream differently.

More often than not, open source creates problems for developers. See Rust's Actix framework.

> It's objectively a terrible idea until a single coal power plants is still running anywhere in Europe (well approximately anyway...).

That's not an explanation or rationale. You just repeated a personal belief.

Do you have any rational basis to support that belief? Repeating "because I said so" doesn't make nuclear power more of an option, nor does it eliminate any of it's many problems.

> Unless that is you consider the value of human lives to be insignificant. 20-30 thousand people die in the EU alone because of coal, slowing down climate change is just a "free" bonus..

It should be good news to you then that Germany is also phasing out coal power along with nuclear then, with 2028 set as the deadline.

> Not building more nuclear plants before renewables became economically viable was a awful idea (...)

Reality does not agree with you, as proven by the fact that nearly half of Germany energy needs already come from renewable sources while Nuclear is already on its way out. It makes no sense at all to try to spin this problem as some clerical issue, specially now when renewables are a tremendous success.

> The laws of physics remain the same,

Yes, this means the half lives are still the same, and the original claim was patently nonsense.

> however the ability to reduce waste half lives by reusing spent fuel rods has changed,

This is also patently false. The advances in nuclear reprocessing only mean that spent fuel rods can be refined and reused, so that the resulting nuclear waste has fewer material with eternal half lives.

Still the shortest half lives of the remaining materials still span thousands of years, which in humanity's time scale means they are eternal.

> so we don’t need to store waste for ten thousand years.

The thing is, you still do. The shortest half lives are tens of thousands of years. Those are the shortest ones. material with longer half lives still exist in spent nuclear fuel, but with lower concentrations. What leads you to believe they don't exist?

> It's not false, it's just probably not easy to understand.

In other words, the thesis has no basis and you have a hard time coming across people who swallow nonsense.

> It's easy to understand if we consider a hypothetical situation where the nuclear power plant is running AND Germany still keeps all other renewable plans.

Is your personal belief held by artificial scenarios that are both absurd and unrealistic?

No wonder people find this blend of bullshit claim hard to understand.

> The obvious downside of this decision is that nuclear generation that has been shut down is replaced by coal and gas.

This is patently false.

Isar plants were built in the 70s. Back then Germany's share of renewable energy sources was residual. Since then, Germany started shutting off nuclear and currently over 40% of it's energy needs are met with renewable energy sources.

The only way to claim that Germany is replacing nuclear with coal and gas is if you opt to go the disingenuous route and claim that some coal and gas power plants went online while nuclear plants were being shut down.

> Also it's not a given that the renewable strategy will succeed.

What? Supplying nearly half of a country's energy needs is now a sign of failure?

> (...) when half lives were incredibly long.

I'm sorry, did the laws of physics changed in the last couple of decades?

> What I don't get about all of this is that the hard, expensive part of nuclear power is building + certifying the plants.

Not really. The hard part is ensuring that nuclear can be safe throughout it's service life. This is what leads to construction process to be extremely expensive, and certification is just an umbrella term that means "checking if the plant doesn't exhibit any of the risks involving pre established problems and disaster scenarios by going through a number of checks."

> (...) and renewable energy expansion creates the illusion that turning off nuclear power plants now is a good idea.

What exactly leads you to believe that shutting off nuclear power is anything other than a good idea?

> Personally I'd like to see nuclear power be a part of a stable baseline for a few more decades.

It was my understanding that by now it was clear this is all around an awful idea. What leads you to still think otherwise?

> I guess it is you that is living in a dream world. There are no epub3 compliant implementations then, because none of them display math properly.

To start off, you already have posts in this very discussion rejecting your misconception.

Secondly, mathml works fine when we have an epub3 reader opening a epub3 doc created by epub3 generators from epub3+mathml input. If any of those requirements aren't met, you get issues. This happens with each and every single typesetting feature, not just mathml. Would you claim that epub fails to support tables if you open an epub doc with broken tables?

Thirdly, a typical implementation shortcut taken by epub readers is to reuse whatever WebView they pick. If your epub reader uses an outdated or shitty WebView implementation, you get shitty epub docs.

https://caniuse.com/?search=mathml

Why are you commenting on subjects you are clearly clueless about?

> Unfortunately MathML doesn't get you proper typesetting in epubs (...)

Wrong. MathML is a part of the Epub3 specification. All e-reader implementations that comply with the epub3 specs get you proper typesetting in books published in epub3 format.

> (...) comparable to what katex would deliver.

You're comparing real world working implementations based on mathml with your hopeful expectations of how you wish katex could work in an epub implementation.

It's good to have hopes and dreams and a positive outlook, but your perceived solution does not exist. It's hardly relevant to present it as a better alternative.

I believe MathML is still the only way to get proper math typesetting in epub, and I doubt katex is an option.

Thanks for the near-academic preciseness and clarity of your explanation. Puny!

> I've found in my experience in in life that those whom comment are others use of swear words are often lacking individuals whom attempt to use their felt'superior language' to demean others.

I wholeheartedly agree. This blend of criticism consists of blanket dismissals of all things staded and even the acknowledging that the person is worthy of consideration or engagement, regardless of what they say or do.

The accuser feels the need to demean others, and for lack of any reason this is what they grab hold onto.

> Swearing might be dumb if used to express harsh, negative opinions among people you don't know.

If anyone expresses "harsh, negative opinions among people you don't know", the dumbness does not lie on whether they swear or not while conveying these opinions.

You might as well complain about how dumb exclamation marks are.

For the oblivious like me, what's the pun?

> Hard disagree, it's exceptionally obvious - the hands aren't just a little off, they're anatomically incorrect.

It really isn't. It's fine you tried to play Catch the Differences after knowing what to look at. That's not what people do with photos running in contests.

> Misses the most important reason for swearing completely: to fine-tune the tone of the conversation.

I agree. Not only does swearing have a modulating effect on conversation, it is also a way to covey the tone in the relationship between people.

This blog post is a poorly thought out attempt at validating prior beliefs regarding which words need policing. It's particularly stupid by the way that, while missing the whole point, accuses references the author finds inconvenient as "aren’t nearly as clear-cut or methodologically sound as they are made to sound".

What a waste of a click.

> I am sorry, didn't want to offend anybody.

Calling out your need to put down others with petty, frivolous details to feel better about youself and your insecurities/frustrations is not an issue of offense. You're contributing to shut down an otherwise interesting discussion just because you feel the need to elevate yourself at the expense of others.

> But this is obvious for a trained eye, which a professional must have.

The fact is that you're clearly wrong, as demonstrated by this contest and the fact that the AI generated image was awarded the top prize by its jury.

Your only counterclaim is that you portray yourself as better than others without reason or substance, and in the process tried to make it about you and elevate yourself at the expense of others by spreading baseless accusations of incompetence.

Again, this says more about you than AI generated content and those who evaluate it, and this discussion is really not about you.

> It is mind-boggling how the "trends" and the non-stop race for validation make all lose their minds. How on earth a photo contest cannot see the false anatomy of the hands and person behind? Did someone in this concourse is actual photographer? Maybe not.

I think you're trying very hard to poke holes at a very run-of-the-mill process. It's easy to pick apart stuff post-facto when you have the benefit of context and hindsight, and you are certain of what you're looking at.

If instead you're judging artwork, it would be unthinkable to reason "this work is pretty good but the model's fingers might look a bit off, and that is a good enough reason to reject the prize".

Throwing blanket accusations of incompetence at the jury also says more about yourself than the contest.

The truth of the matter is that AI -generated images are becoming quite impressive and can be a challenge to tell apart. This is not a problem with a jury in a context. We had deep fakes in the recent past, and they are improving rapidly.

It's easy to try to elevate yourself by putting down others, but while you're there making claims like it's obvious that the streaming audio of Biden and Obama and Trump and Hillary hanging out playing Minecraft is bullshit, multiple high-ranking officials already fell for calls from people using similar tech to impersonate world leaders.