szemet

Looking at the photos, I can imagine it is even rotating. Ok-ok, it is near the axle, but you do not see racing bikes with huge internally geared hubs neither, so...

> Using extension modules is just a time-tested, highly organized, modular, robust design pattern.

I really don't get this. I'am fully on the side that limitations may increase design quality. E.g I accept the argument that Haskell immutability often leads to good design, I also believe the same true for Rust ownership rules (it often forces a design where components have a well defined responsibility: this component only manages resource X starting from { until }.)

But having a performance boundary between components, why would that help?

E.g. This algorithm will be fast with floats but will be slow with complex numbers. Or: You can provide X,Y as callback function to our component, it will be blessed and fast, but providing your custom function Z it will be slow.

So you should implement support for callback Z in a different layer but not for callback X,Y, and you should rewrite your algorithm in a lower level layer just to support complex numbers. Will this really lead to a better design?

Another, but much cheaper trick is to always leave the alarm on: then you have around 10 seconds of chance every morning to find it, if not - then better luck next day!

Yes. But economics is different for local and remote work:

Like it is natural to pay the same price for something we both order from China, and in the same time it is also completely normal that we will pay different prices for potatoes at our local market.

Based on more mature codebase.

/When I tried Clickhouse, I managed to segfault it with NULL pointer dereference error. Ok it is anecdotal, and maybe I just had bad luck, same could happen with Postgres etc etc... But anyway: it can be a deciding factor. (And they fixed it quickly - issue 7955 on github) /

I actually liked the mixed language approach (keywords/library functions in english, my stuff localized) when I've learned programming (and did not speak english well):

Even then, you can learn the keywords and standard library function names easily - but to name things, that needs a different level of language knowledge.

So teaching in mixed languages is a good compromise. And it is also very helpful to immediately distinguish between things that were already there, and things have been defined in the actual program. I remember this being a helpful feature to learn language/stdlib by simply reading others code.

The more I think of it: it would be good to get back this kind of easy differentiation (maybe with IDE extension?) now...

On the other hand Scratch have localization support, and lack of syntax errors - maybe the two largest blockers for smaller children...

"Opposition parties are so inept: they could not even operate corruption."

(Do not know if it is original or some old joke: I have heard it from hungarian stand-up comedian Tibor Bödőcs - who is btw basically the only comedian left who dare (or talented enough to get away with) criticizing every side of the political spectrum here - nowadays mostly Orbán of course...)

> Who invents the rules

Anywho is:

they could be someone with states of mind, bending over endless amount of paper, paging, writing and deleting symbols on them with their pencil for some time (or forever)

Otherwise how could anyone invent rules?

It would be so great to get out some general&universal results starting from this setup... ;)

> Water is ... a mild solvent

I remember, when I was a child I asked my parents (both are chemists), about what the most powerful solvent is. To my suprise they answered: water.

Wow, that can be true, it is everywhere, I tought...

It is somewhat a point of view question, considering that there are different categories of solvents - it is like asking a biologist about the most dangerous animal: human - of course! But that can't be true, humans are everywhere and I'm still alive.

These kind of suprises happens if you do not specify the questions exactly (Dangerous to what and how? Solving exactly what kind of things?)

edit: it is natural to think, that something is mild and friedly (in general) - if you are made of that...

To show a positive example, without word redefinitions: IMHO western society largely managed to end prejudice against left-handiness, while keeping the word "right".

(And this "left -> bad" or "right" -> good (or both) association is as (or more) prevalent in languages of the world as the "dark -> bad" association)