cfv

Apologies in advance if this sounds excessively rude, but I'm not asking for anything as there's noone to actually ask to, I'm asking about that.

That distinction matters, since I personally find it easier to derive enthusiasm from concrete, tangible tools that may prevent the entire species as a thing from dying choked in a toxic miasma of our own creation than from the purely numeric advances in our grasp of the rules of a universe we're basically guests in.

So... no?

So, the biggest question I have about all this eminently theoretical physics video thing is, has anyone ever managed to experimentally demonstrate you can __voluntarily__ bend the brane our reality resides on by any measurable amount, and also demonstrate this causes an actual translation in 3d space? At all? Ever?

Or are we conjecturing what would happen if this was even slightly viable?

We've only very recently managed to experimentally demonstrate that unimaginably huge cataclismic events can make this happen, but, has anyone ever built some device that can make a crease of any significance at all in reality, and do so at will?

It'd be absolutely bonkers if you could use this exact same DSL to generate valid strings

Here's an idea:

- Move all documents to a simple doc server like idk Alfresco

- Any any all single read requests to this server are authorized after biometric confirmation of any parties involved, which are then added to the users' "file".

- Any one use of this data that can be construed as malicious carries 4 to 8 years of jail for anyone involved in the chain of custody of the specific bits of misused data.

You don't need superstars on the project, you need the right balance of incentives around mucking with it.

OK, given the sudden surge in anonymous morons unable to follow basic prompts for civil discussion and the refusal of the implementors to do something about the mounting garbage on this site, I'm adding hacker news to my block list.

I'm done with y'all.

It's oddly infuriating to read this from a "developing" (ie poor) country.

We get permanently schooled by all this rich countries who ransacked both our and later their natural resources in order to build themselves into prosperity.

Yes, it would be awesome if every one of us adopted a hectare of land and personally hugged every little bird and fox every day to try ensure their precious existence (which is undoubtedly precious and a tragedy if lost), but we cannot and won't do that if they sit on a source of precious, scarce income.

It's because of stuff lke this that poachers exist; you don't risk death to kill rhinos for eating, you do it because you may feed your family for a week by selling a chunk of it.

People don't risk angering whatever arcane disease some random swamp animal has for the thrill of it, they do because that's their only means of making money.

If richer countries wanted to stop poorer countries from exploiting whatever sources of income they can find, then they should help build other means of obtaining said income.

As in, not just throwing money at people and expecting that to magically solve anything, but actually build means of making a living and doing so in a way that doesn't set up a predatory structure like businesses will do.

EDIT: Loving the insta-downvote with no comment. Please, come out of hiding and explain yourselves.

Yeah... About that... I mean... no. When the possible death of thousands upon thousands of people is on the line, your proposal better be ironclad and well equipped to stand many lines of attack if you want it to be taken seriously.

"Hey maybe let's not do the one massively researched thing that we've done since times of the plague because there's not enough data" is neither of those things.

Open dialogue in science needs to take place in the forums already in place, not on clickbaity money-starved legacy media.

EDIT: Dear rando downvoters, please instead of lurking help foster debate by stating why in your opinion untestable indefensible claims should be allowed to pass as science in the name of "open dialogue".

Twitter has degenerated into one of the least friendly things to build an app for. I've had a better dev experience with Gab, ffs.

Not only that, but also their community building and tending is abysmal too, so your app will end up used mostly by the kind of user that brings infinitesimal value with them.

Twitter isn't worth it.

Yeah I'm pretty sure the language that has birthed conventions like HasThisTypePatternTriedToSneakInSomeGenericOrParameterizedTypePatternMatchingStuffAnywhereVisitor and RefreshAuthorizationPolicyProtocolServerSideTranslatorPB are rife with great practices that are in no way obscured by layers upon layers upon layers of half-assed abstraction.

The one with System.ServiceModel.Install.Configuration.ServiceModelConfigurationSectionGroupCollection in it surely musts be awesome too; I've heard great things about it.

The footguns in a given language being more ornate and towering than in another doesn't make that language better, but the ability to produce resilient, maintainable solutions for a given problem space in it.

Ah yes, Sargon of Akkad, of "I wouldn't even rape you" fame.

If anything, I'm pretty glad the absolutely despicable thing is no longer funded through them and kinda makes me want to contribute more money to Patreon somehow.

I still remember when Clang bringing LLVM along was seen as SO OUT THERE and I'm just mentioning it because I find it weird to be old enough to see fads in system languages come and start to go.

Just curious, do you have any examples of this "limitations" you speak of? Sounds like a very interesting read.