I had a Sinclair QL which pioneered the keyboard. It wasn’t great - it was far behind the Acorn BBCs and the Commodores) but it was quite usable.
There was significant vertical travel, and there was variation in the push the key gave back - increasing to a point of no return, then a quick downward movement to the thunk of the end of key travel.
I could type moderately fast on it.
The reference if you haven’t seen it.
Dara Ó Briain is a legend!
If you’re pushing everyone’s buttons it’ll end badly.
Two more examples: Dredd and Ex Machina.
That was one of the original proposed mechanisms to explain how the (obviously false) autism was caused.
But since then, since thiomersal was removed, other ‘causes’ and moral issues have been invented, including cells from abortions.
The one that makes me laugh the most is that it’s terrible that the poor poor baby is exposed to so many illnesses (measles, mumps, rubella, polio, tetanus, notovirus, rotovirus and more) in such a short space of time, it’s no wonder the poor dear’s immune system is compromised. And then the same mother drops the kid off at daycare and exposes the poor dear to all those viruses and more - and live viruses at that.
There is no bleeding logic, just feels. And they get so angry at the fake harm that medicine is causing, and simultaneously actually causing real harms to real people.
I don’t think that the anti-oop collective is attacking polymorphism or overloading - both are important in functional programming. And let’s add encapsulation and implementation hiding to this list.
The argument is that OOP makes the wrong abstractions. Inheritance (as OOP models it) is quite rare on business entities. The other major example cited is that an algorithm written in the OOP style ends up distributing its code across the different classes, and therefore
Instead of this, the functional programmer says, you should write the algorithm as a function (or several functions) in one place, so it’s the function that walks the object structure. The navigation is done using tools like apply or map rather than a loop in a method on the parent instance.
A key insight in this approach is that the way an algorithm walks the data structure is the responsibility of the algorithm rather than a responsibility that is shared across many classes and subclasses.
In general, I think this is a valid point - when you are writing algorithms over the whole dataset. OOP does have some counterpoints encapsulating behaviour on just that object for example validating the object’s private members, or data processing for that object and its immediate children or peers.
stop using it
Are the MAGA crowd actively cancelling products now?
I’m going to suggest food items that we still take from nature and eat with minimal preparation:
We have evidence of shellfish and fish being eaten for a very long time - at least the middle stone age at 140kya - in middens which are 10s of thousands of years old.
Honey is likely to have been a food source - a treat even - even before humans left Africa (so before 100kya) but sadly this would be invisible in the archeological record
There is non-zero risk in every surgery, and this is a major surgery. There is non-zero risk of very very severe consequences: brain infection, stroke being just some. While these risks are low, they are non-zero. The volunteers have the possibility of losing everything.
Java programmers are also functionally illiterate
This was actually because a small developer picked the name of their new S3 bucket that happened to collide with a default name of an open source package. Over one weekend they racked up $1300 charges and thousands of users attempted to upload to their bucket. Every call failed (invalid api key) but the developer was still charged.
Wild.
Here’s the sauce
I must not use jargon.
Jargon is the mind-killer.
Jargon is the little-death that brings total confusion. I will face the jargon. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the jargon has gone there will be clarity. Only sense will remain.
That lectern as pictured is a cheap copy worth way less than $1000. The allegation is that she paid her friend for costs of a trip to Paris of which there are social media photos at expensive nightlife locations.
“DI frameworks” are Satan’s farts. Classpath-scanning nonsense that turns compile-time errors into runtime errors. Not only is your Ctr still coupled to your Svc, but both are now coupled to Spring.
Let’s qualify this: DI frameworks that use configuration files to specify the dependencies are Satan’s farts. You can use the DI pattern but do the injection in source code to get full compile-time type checking and all the benefits of a fully packaged JAR or similar binary. The root of the evil is having text files as part of the packaging, and not having the tooling to treat those files as part of the source code at build time.
This is a brilliant idea - not just because it solves the problem of too many homeopaths but because of the way homeopathy ‘works’.
Homeopathy is the idea that “like treats like” (the homeo is latin for “the same”). So typically the homeopath looks at the symptoms of the disease, finds some poison that causes the same symptoms, then dilutes the hell out of it.
In this case, what are the symptoms that homeopathy causes? Dumbness. So the ground up homeopath pills would be ideal for treating homeopath users and practitioners. And the Gwyneth Paltrow crowd. So many birds with one stone!
As I was discussing this with my partner we summarised this as:
Humans have always had the capacity for violence and murder; as populations grew, acts of violence could be larger, both in terms of number of combatants and also length of time of continuous fighting. This is a progression of:
Somewhere between city-states and full modern nation states, there have been full on campaigns of genocide. But genocide can be thought here definitionally as only possible with some significant number of people.
Unfortunately there is a deep dark part of the human psyche that has always been with us.
I hear what you’re saying, but there’s a counterpoint to this.
In prehistoric times, population densities were low. In mesolithic times (hunter gatherers) there were simply no concentration of people large enough to wipe out or to do the killing. Nothing could be called genocide at this time.
In neolithic times (the first farmers) violence was definitely a part of life. Some early towns do show signs that they were destroyed. But again, population densities are low enough that the scale of violence would not be enough to call ‘genocide’. It’s a town burnt down with everyone murdered, not a ‘people’ - whatever that might mean at this time. This is not about egalitarianism - it’s population density.
However as we move to the bronze age, there are definitely signs that large scale events occur that might fit into the modern concept of genocide but archeological evidence is severely lacking. The main line I would argue is that the male lines of the neolithic farmers in Europe are hammered and almost completely replaced with the Yamnaya Y chromosomes across a huge expanse - from the east european plains to the Iberian peninsula. Genetic continuity with the neolithic farmers is maintained though indicating that male newcomers were having children with local women, and very few male locals had children. During this event the culture changed hugely - burial patterns, material goods, etc.
I don’t know if we can call this genocide - at least the full modern concept - because these changes took centuries to roll out across the expanse of Europe, but they speak to local conquests and, at the very least, the newcomers prevented local males from having their own families. At worst you can imagine a constant expansion of this new culture taking control of new areas, killing the men, taking local women as concubines and eradicating their gods, customs and ways of living. Quite a lot of genocidal checklist items ticked off there.
By the mid to later bronze age, genicide is definitely a widespread thing, recorded in many texts.
The paradox of tolerance.
If people are tolerant of intolerance, tolerance dies. So, ironically, people who are otherwise highly tolerant people (especially when they have thought about this deeply) realise they must reject intolerance loudly and intensely, lest their way of life is destroyed.
Elon Musk didn’t build the company.
Elon Musk invested into the company,
That’s what I said a couple of paragraphs later
What about the people who lived in the Americas or the Pacific 1800 years ago? These people could not have heard of Jesus as missionaries could not have spread any word to them at this time.
(And while I’m about it, Christianity was a whole different thing back then - the Trinity hadn’t been invented, there were multiple sects with very different ideas, what books would be in the New Testament had not been decided, etc etc. People with beliefs of that time would seem highly unorthodox today, and the Christianity of today would be seen as heretical by those in the 3rd century, so who’s going to heaven again?)
Purgatory was invented for the purpose of not sending good people who had not heard of Jesus to hell. But still, these people were denied their chance to get to heaven which seems mighty unfair.