ihatepython

I don't know, but Chris L was always a C++ guy, he never really understood Objective-C in my opinion, which is why Swift ended up the way it did. I doubt he ever used it very much, or had a deep understanding of it.

You have an optimistic view of ChatGPT. What I see happening is the movie 'Idiocracy' becoming a reality.

Who am I kidding, Idiocracy is already a reality. Just look at the comments here on HN.

> Amiga had this fast ram concept. Atari ST unfortunately did not.

But the Atari ST didn't have custom chips, so there was no need for chip ram/fast ram?

I'd rather have lots of hardware sprites like the Genesis, in addition to the blitter. I think a lot of Amiga games felt like they ran slow, because it's a lot easier to move a sprite, than to move a blitter object.

> Amiga/Commodore had the best engineers Atari had the best business folks

While I had an Amiga and thought it was ahead of its time, I think both the Commodore 64 and Atari ST have aged better than the Amiga. The Commodore 64 has the SID chip so it's basically a programmable synth and still used even today, the Atari ST has MIDI ports, so it's a programmable MIDI Controller with timing that is arguably better than anything modern. Of course, the Amiga was Jay Miner's design and the successor to the Atari 800, but was released by Commodore. But I fail to see what has survived from the Amiga, personally I prefer hardware sprites to the blitter/copper and the bitplane graphics. The playback of sound samples was nice at the time, but the SID chip is much more distinctive. HAM was interesting at the time, but not relevant at all today. The pre-emptive multitasking was interesting, but not that useful at the time. I prefer the single tasking of the Atari ST especially for music apps, because the timing is more precise.

The Commodore 64 also had better sprites than the Amiga. Jay Miner didn't really like hardware sprites. I think he was wrong about this.

> I'll definitely want my country's Secretary of Health to be a doctor who understands public health and its related policies, not a politician whose primarily skill is being popular and getting elected.

Why not? The head of the WHO is not a medical doctor, he's a doctor in the sense that he has a PhD.

There is probably no organization more trusted than the WHO.

You ain't seen nothing yet. It still hasn't reached its peak.

> why it's seen as acceptable to make broad generalizations based on race and sex in this way?

In the current climate, it is acceptable to make broad generalizations about white males, however if the same exact generalizations are made about black people, then they will call you racist (Black Lives Matter), or if you make the same exact generalizations about trans or non-binary people, you will also have problems. I don't think they are anti-Arab anymore, they lost interest in the War on Terror because it wasn't working. Instead, it looks like they are moving to demonize the Russians and the Chinese. Obviously, the climate will change at some point.