Surely long term it'd be cost? A screen and a keyboard in a laptop shell should be a lot cheaper that a screen, a keyboard, RAM, SSD, fans etc in a laptop shell.
Those other parts of the laptop are cheap though. Sure not free, but chromebooks can be had new for just a few hundred $$$ (they don't need a fan either). If you want a fast laptop you need to spend a lot of money, but a fast laptop has the ability to have better RAM, SSDs and such than your phone because there is more space in that form factor and so if you want fast you are back to laptop while if you don't need fast your laptop is cheap.
I think this is a really good take - Apple especially (but Google too) aren't gonna naturally invest time and resources into software that'll make you less likely to buy more of their hardware.
That said, market incentives can and do change pretty fast. Especially with climate change, and current tension in global supply chains, we could see a shift away from hardware caused by taxes or pirce hikes (I'm not saying we will though).
That'd be a game changer for how much companies might invest in changing what computing looks like.
Plus one for everything you said! I've been using WeGo in place of Google maps for a good few months and it's been an easy drop in swap without any compromises for me.
It would be immense for an open source project to exist, but I'll happily settle for a non-google one.
As in, the "you should read Popper" comment was in response to somebody saying they though opting out of moderation/censorship was not good. I think Popper would broadly agree with this, and say that moderating out racism, transphobia etc is essential for good discourse.
This is all unfounded obviously, since Popper didn't ever use or write about social media.
Ah, an easy misunderstanding to make. The initial comment by ebisoka was not, in fact, in praise of moderation. The dog-whistle is the word "certain" near the end—insinuating that the Bonfire policy is to tolerate "racism and sexism" so long as it comes from minorities and is directed at the majority, following a quotation from the policies about how moderators may elect to ignore complaints of discrimination or inflammatory remarks when they are directed at majoritarian identities.
The CoC provides a justification for this decision—which, to elaborate on its rather simple framing, is that offensive rhetoric directed at minorities is qualitatively different from its inverse because it can incite racial violence and control the Overton window.* ebisoka doesn't consider this a worthy reason for the site's policies to admit to a biased moderation policy, but it's a deliberate nuance in the design that isn't captured in a simple description of the paradox of tolerance. (It's not an entirely problem-free policy, but the moderators aren't being instructed to ignore all abuse directed at majoritarians, just to be selective in what they tolerate. Antipathy is not quite the same as intolerance.)
Note also that ebisoka began the post with "these sites are easy to figure out," which suggests there is a multiplicity of sites like Bonfire that can be summarized (and therefore dismissed) purely on the basis of their Codes of Conduct. It's a fishing expedition for instances of affirmative action.
ebisoka put a lot of work into ensuring that post would slip by the radar for the average reader, but it's basically the same pattern of euphemisms that is guiding the Right's current crusade against DEI.
* Some strings attached. 1) Not as true in pluralistic societies or societies with near-equal splits; mostly a problem when the dominant group is vastly larger than the others. Hence other commenters remarking that this is a West-centric policy. 2) At the extreme end of the spectrum are places like South Africa and Zimbabwe, where the lingering populations of lower-class white people are subject to the double-whammy of lack of representation or advocacy in society and government, plus being the targets of resentment over colonialism.
ebisoka clearly came here to sow discord and pit groups of people against each other. Their comment history is very clear on that. What's really sad is that people took the bait right away.
Caveat that I only have a tiny amount of experience with Clojure and none at all with Scala, so this isn't coming from a place of language knowledge in those fields.
I'm not convinced though that the Clojure graph represents something I'd view positively. Notably, the Scala codebase gets smaller at one point, which looks fantastic to me. Nobody want the world changing under there feet every five seconds, but if code just accumulates without refactors, the end product often becomes not only unusable, but also difficult to replace.
Personally, I'd much prefer more frequent refactors in a changing codebase (vs code addition) but with a strict adherance to semvar, that way, I can stick on v3 or whatever if I'm worried about v4 breaking things for me, but the project itself doesn't need to worry about stagnating, or being stuck with design decisions that aren't relevant anymore.
I'm always happy when I see a library like pyarrow that has high version numbers, because I take it as a sign that they're most likely actually following semvar, as opposed to libraries that stay on v0 for 10+ years.
This rings so true for me! Helix is beautiful and works fantastic, I'm pretty happy not having AI integrated into my editor so Helix is basically exactly as I want without any extras I don't!
I probably didn't give enpugh context here, but the maincoral gets nutrition from the colourful algae on its surface. When temperatures rise, the algae gives off toxins, so the main coral rejects the algae (and then later dies because it has no food source).
It's really hard for that kind of process to evolve out, but some scientists are having success hardening coral in labs (so it'll reject algae less hastily) before releasing them into the wild
Yeah, I found this when I was playing around with Hy a while back. I wanted a generic `->` style operator, and isn't wasn't too much trouble to write a macro to introduce one.
That's sort of an argument for the existence of macros as a whole, you can't really do this as neatly in something like python (although I've tried) - I can see the downside of working in a codebase with hundreds of these kind of custom language features though.
I have a sort of recipe for openly discussing disagreements with someone:
1. Demonstrate that you understand their point, and concede ground where necessary (what you think is attractive about what they are saying, what it explains well, etc)
2. Explain (not tell) why it is that in spite of that, you don't hold the position they do (maybe it leads to some other conclusion, maybe there's another core principle at work)
3. Ask, with genuine curiosity, what they think about the problem you raised, how to they resolve it in their mind?
I don't think that'll necessarily make you more likely to change their mind, but you'll certainly be more likely to learn something.
And if they aren't actually interested in discussing, and are just engaging in some kind of show boating etc, it will become immediately clear because you are only leaving open the possibility of curious, open dialogue.
