nathanwh

“ The difference is in what I call shape stability. If the shape of a type is stable, then there is no way to mutate it such that a previously valid reference into it becomes invalid.”

From an application programmers standpoint, isn’t this much weaker? Part of the appeal of not having shared mutability is not having to worry about data races in general, while this shape stability approach prevents some classes of data races it requires others to be enforced by the programmer, as far as I can tell.

It’s hard for me to tell the net effect of this, maybe preventing reference errors is enough, but I suspect that once you start having to enforce other invariants manually, it will feel like the savings from the automatic shape stability enforcement are not enough of an improvement over languages without any significant compile time memory safety checks.

I think a more fair comparison would be that you hired a consulting firm to create a report and give you a summary of it, but you’re charged for the report itself separately from the summary, and you are not allowed to access the unsummarized report.

I use the same analogy explaining to people what my meds do. They’re a catalyst in that they lower the activation energy of doing anything other than doomscrolling

Thank you for this, I have wondered for more than a year why Google Maps would not show up when I searched for it.

Another happy aerospace here! IMO it does a great job with barely any configuration required (the default config works great, I have barely tweaked it over years of use), that said I’m not exactly power user of tiling WMs, I have one app per workspace 90% of the time

I don’t understand the screenshot, the “attacker” sent that to customers? Or Delve created this screenshot as a dramatic reenactment? The post is not clear

I only skimmed this but it has several things that make me suspicious. Mainly that they did not require a diagnosis for ADHD but instead separated participants based on a questionnaire regarding symptoms. Additionally their participant pool somehow contained more than 20% of neurodevelopmental disorders and other mental health disorders which seems very high.

Not only that, but 2,6,7 is also a set but not included in the results

Ah makes sense, thank you

Neat project! Maybe this decision is copied over from unreal engine, but instead of `ensure` and `ensure_always`, having names like `ensure_once` and `ensure` would have been more clear to me.

I did read that part, I just feel that the idea that somehow something good comes from removing the feather (which is negligible expense relative to changing the name), is just plainly saying that we care about inclusivity but only so long as it’s not expensive. Which is more or less the policy of every large organization, but it’s rare that it gets said.

I don’t know that I’ve ever seen such a short article so clearly demonstrate how much don’t actually care about the people who they are to trying to placate. They’re changing the feather because it’s apparently offensive to reference it, but they’re not changing the name because it would cost money. Even though the name is way more tightly tied to the people than the feather. I don’t actually care about the logo or the name I just find having the dichotomy so clearly spelled out interesting.

Settings > Accessibility > Display & Text Size > Color Filters > Greyscale

Previously your unit test was broken one day every four ish years. Now it's broken every day :)