mvhvv

Why do you think that folks discussing this situation find it upsetting, stressful and/or maddening?

The idea that blocking the billionaire owner would prevent me from noticing Twitter is struggling is a little silly.

I see this mentioned a lot, but I don't think it's entirely true. The book was apparently well liked in the USSR due to the obvious anti-capitalist reading. The film was imported by the government intending to screen it as a propaganda piece, but quickly cancelled.

The part about the farmer having his own truck seeming like a luxury to soviet citizens is true, but it's a bit unfair to say it was banned when the book was so well regarded.

I think the distinction between tracking a private jet and tracking a private car is fairly clear cut. The point isn't to actually show where Musk is at any one point (who cares?), but I think the intent of the account is to show the intense disconnect between him and normal (non-private-jet-owning folks).

Unless I'm misremembering, the ElonJet account listed the cost and the amount of fuel consumed for every flight right? His willingness to burn 10 tonnes of jet fuel on a whim definitely doesn't mesh well with his brand as "The EV-guy".

What do you think the value is in a stock that doesn't pay dividends? It seems to me that if you remove them, you're getting into pyramid-scheme territory.

I personally prefer to watch most things with subtitles. I'm usually extremely conscious of how much noise I'm making in the house, and I rarely ever want to watch something at cinema volumes. Good quality subtitles rarely ever feel intrusive, but I really wish there was a better distinction between subtitling and closed-captioning.

Most modern streaming platforms seem to only offer one accessibility-focused option that combines both, and I find it hugely irritating to see text on-screen like "[SOMBRE MUSIC PLAYS]" or "[CROWD MURMURING]".

I'm unsure exactly what the above poster is trying to say, I generally find Rust development very pleasant with nothing but vscode and Rust-analyzer.

But... I'll admit there is one major stumbling block so far. Debugging iterator chains can be cumbersome because of the disconnect between the language and the compiled code. I've found myself stepping in and out of assembly more than I'd like. I assume this is the kind of problem that can be overcome with a nicer debugger though.

It's definitely unclear what "inaccurate" means in this sense?

Is an entire track inaccurate if a single sample is inaccurate? In that case then yeah, rather than measuring some level of audio purity, this is measuring your likelihood of getting a perfect rip before taking CD condition into account.

One thing I think is missed from these kinds of back of the napkin calculations is all the bizarre thermodynamic side-effects you'd encounter if you were somehow able to drill an actual hole through the core without it collapsing. I imagine the convection currents would be extreme.

Not to mention how the pressure in the centre of the earth is extreme because of the weight of the rock itself. When you have a hypothetical uncollapsible hole, you're explicitly removing the vast majority of that pressure. I'd be curious to know how those actual values work out for a "giant chimney" model though.

I'm not sure if things are different outside Australia, but it's probably been 15-20 years since I've lived in a house with a hot-water storage tank. As far as I know most places seem to have instant/continuous systems that heat the water on demand as it passes through the line.

Solar-heating definitely makes storage make more sense, but I don't know how the numbers actually work out on that one.

I'm no power-plant engineer, but vaguely remembering back to thermodynamics 101, in a perfect heat-engine efficiency is relative to the temperature delta.

You can't just turn heat to electricity, so below a certain threshold it's only good for warming spaces.

You made me stop and question myself for a second, but this definitely isn't right. Usually when people talk about "TCP/IP" it's shorthand for the whole "Internet Protocol Suite", but even naively TCP and IP are two different layers.

I think this is really just a factor of what you're used to, because none of those Python examples seem like an issue to me, and the Perl examples seem much harder to parse. I personally prefer print as a function rather than a statement, and keeping most standard lib functionality in modules seems like the right choice for anything other than a DSL.

I agree scope leakage is a major stumbling block with Python for sure, but it only occurs with control-flow so rarely causes actual issues once you're aware of it. Aside from that my biggest qualms with Python are the typesystem and whitespace for scoping, but those two don't cause much trouble for typical scripting purposes.

And, for what it's worth, Python's f-strings have been the go-to string formatting approach since 2016 so your example becomes something like:

  print(f"Hello {name}")

Which is doubly nice because you can also use format specifiers and arbitrary expressions like so:

  >>> f"The current year is {datetime.now().year} and the value of pi is approximately: {22/7:.2f}"
  'The current year is 2022 and the value of pi is approximately: 3.14'

Where do you think Python has failed as a scripting language? I'm not very familiar with Perl, but overall I can't think of any obvious advantages aside from some of the syntactic sugar around invoking shell commands and string matching.

I can see stability as a knock against Python, but outside of 2 vs 3 the only breaking changes I've really had to deal with were relatively short term issues with third party libs.

I sympathise with your desire to replace shell scripts, but I don't see why that replacement should be Perl of all things. Like you said, Python has displaced Perl due to ecosystem support, so why chase history here?

It's interesting seeing this conception of post-modernism 20 years down the track. I think the article almost gets at the point, but overshoots and ends up in navel-gazing territory with:

"Look at the big picture. Don't focus in on two or three things to the exclusion of other things. Keep everything in context. Don't go out of your way to justify stuff that's obviously cool. Don't ridicule ideas merely because they're not the latest and greatest. Pick your own fashions. Don't let someone else tell you what you should like. 'Tsall good."

Post-modernism is not so much about picking-and-choosing and going-your-own-way, but it is about looking at the big picture and keeping everything in context. Importantly it's not about the total rejection of assumption and consistency, but about critically challenging and analysing them.

I think a lot of folks unfortunately continue to approach it in this same way, but in 202X we often make the additional mistake of assuming that the "modernism" that "post-modernism" is rebelling against is our contemporary "modern" society. That often gets misrepresented as a rejection of the enlightenment or some other extreme sounding position, but it's much better understood as a challenge of epistemic certainty and an attempt to break down and understand our ideological assumptions.