veltas

I really love Forth and spend almost all my free programming time playing with it and I'd never teach it to a class of kids.

It's really easy to miss the value in Pointless Rewrite 5 of Core Module 4, but the grad who rewrites it will at least understand it afterwards and can fix the bugs they introduced and add new features to it easier. But the hard pill to swallow is they spent $200K of the engineering budget making the code worse.

The way to understand the value is to see the engineer as an asset. Engineers aren't interchangeable and no codebase can truly be documented and CI'd to the point where expertise doesn't matter.

Also listened in the car but since they've recently shut down the LW tower I can't receive it anymore in the midlands, only occasionally get FM signal.

The original joke for anyone who doesn't know or remember, Michael, the manager, asks his accountant to explain what a surplus is like he would to an 8 year old. Michael doesn't understand this and asks for how he would explain it to a 5 year old, which Oscar does a very good job with explaining and Michael finally understands.

Later the security guard is called upstairs to break a tie on votes for what to spend the surplus on, and Michael starts reciting Oscar's 5 year old explanation, and the guard cuts him off saying he knows what a surplus is.

I have to imagine this is sort of a joke about the audience too as inevitably the writers were considering that audience members might not know what a surplus is, and this kind of joke is an opportunity to explain it.

Interesting though in retrospect they chose good platforms, Mac and UNIX are still around and flourishing and OS/2 died a death, although would a lot of OS/2 stuff have run on Windows?

Which would be a problem if it was called "14 words".

They've been putting interesting update screenshots on fediverse recently: https://merveilles.town/@neauoire/116823589548151098

This will probably hurt your chances, bypassing the normal interview process is usually frowned upon.

I don't know how this is a counter-point, isn't it just a point? Can lawns co-exist with no lawns?

EDIT: parent has removed "counter-point".

My young children both love the lawn and I can tell they get a lot from interacting with it, playing on it, etc. It is a little bit of accessible greenery in my small back-garden and I don't need to water it, just mow it occasionally.

Probably because AI datacenters would benefit from tech like that.

You might want to read the article.

With standards it helps to reconcile existing behaviour, rather than create new unproven syntax.

Likewise creating a new syntax for something that already exists means you are just adding to the heap of stuff that needs support on mainstream servers, and as I already said it will probably create compatibility issues as the old deprecated/illegal syntax is removed. This is unnecessary friction.

And really what is the advantage of a new syntax? That needs explaining.

The other issue with adding a separate supported way to do what people did with GET+body is that we will probably see servers slowly drop support for the GET+body approach when QUERY gets widespread support/usage, and then a ton of other stuff will break.

Unless you're really going to improve things or the existing practices are really too painful, standards should follow convention. Even though GET+body is not handled the same everywhere, it's easier to make that the standard than it is to make a new syntax the standard.

Surely std::print() shouldn't print anything?

Last time I checked there's a small industry of gstreamer contractors, so it's not that simple.

Much the same as 'arguments' I can have with LLM's about things where I'm the expert and I know it's wrong, but it will justify its position to the end because it's trained on common misconceptions that exist among less-expert people.

When the official EU websites use the same kinds of annoying dialogs, how is this true?

All this regulatory overhead won't help competition.

As a consumer who has only tried honest chargebacks within their 'consumer rights' and has never won them, apparently you can fight them, and apparently companies deem them worth fighting.

I will say personally I didn't feel this way in the 2000's, and I was a child at the start of that decade. Maybe I am cynical.

To add to this YouTube has just added a feature where if you share a link it tells the person who opens the link your profile name, which is doxxing people actively. And further attempt to make YouTube more like other social media.

It's like Twitter basically but with vlogs instead of microblogs. And now there's micro-vlogs too.

If "X" is social media then so is YouTube.

There is this weird attempt to claim YouTube isn't social media from Google and others, but it's literally called "You Tube". It was designed as social media from the start, it's impossible to separate this without changing the name and everything about how it works except the films and series available to pay for.

> if there is such a bug, I'm sure someone will figure out how to get in touch with Daniel and co

No, that is the point, they are not going to accept your vuln report. They are taking a holiday.

To be clear: they are not shadow puppets at all, they are not being displayed in the traditional way, but they are being captured with a camera.

In many scenes characters entirely change their shape in a natural or fluid way, because the cut-outs are being wholly replaced with different cut-outs from frame to frame, to simulate a natural/fluid motion. This is one of many techniques used in the film possible with stop-motion animation and impossible with shadowpuppets.

I watched the film and was quite impressed with the animation techniques used, although this isn't really novel but not because of puppets, animation actually goes back much further than film. It's a beautiful film though, and I can see why people preserved it.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2...

This is not true, it's a stop-motion animation.

I like to think there's a solid argument against dark forest that even if you can destroy other intelligent systems, then hidden intelligent cautious systems may exist and see evidence of what you've done, so there's a potential consequence to destroying every intelligent system you identify.

And then also (maybe this is absurd) isn't there something intrinsic in intelligence to want to avoid conflict and desire peace?

I don't know, but you'll be able to write Fortran in it.

Lowering demand doesn't always lower price. Assuming the industry is competitive, and capable of supplying all demand, which it usually is, the loss of demand mostly means less money for the producer, and more money for the former consumer to spend on something else.