theodorejb

As well as Lake Ontario.

> We will support the Deno runtime for another year with monthly releases containing bug fixes and security updates. After that year we will end our development of the Deno runtime. Deno will remain open source, and we welcome others who want to continue its development.

So unless someone else picks up development, Deno will no longer be supported.

Design has tradeoffs, and when these are considered I doubt you'd want to trade your eyes for another organism's. The human eye is a marvel of engineering, and even today the best digital cameras we design can't capture even close to the dynamic range our eyes can see (12-15 stops vs. 20-24 stops simultaneously). After adjusting to the dark, the human eye can perceive a single photon striking the retina.

> Life didn't spring up fully formed, it developed in stages.

Have these stages been observed, or are they merely a speculative story? No one has ever demonstrated life arising from non-life (a violation of the Law of Biogenesis).

What is semantically incoherent about my perspective that life was clearly designed?

We know that intricate machines are designed by smart people; they don't just happen by luck. The idea that living things, which are far more intricately organized at every level than any machine we have made, could have arisen by some unknown series of chance steps is a fairy tale. It has never been observed, and even in the most controlled of environments it cannot be replicated. To me it's far more reasonable to conclude that life was designed by a super intelligent Creator. Just as a piano implies a piano maker (even if we haven't seen them), life implies an original Life-giver.

The worst situation I've encountered is after a large conference when everyone is leaving the hotel at once. An elevator quickly fills up on the way down, but then wastes time stopping at every subsequent floor with a call, even though no one else can fit inside. At each floor the elevator stops, the doors open, the waiting people see it's already packed, the doors close, and this repeats on the next 15 floors before finally reaching the bottom where everyone gets off. If the algorithm could know an elevator is completely full and only stop at its destination floors rather than every floor along the way with a call, it would be far more efficient.

The Big Bang is an almost infinitely malleable story, contorted to comport with almost anything we observe. But how is this useful? The predictions of this theory continually fail. The farther we look, the more we see stars, galaxies, black holes, and other structures that shouldn't exist according to this model.

What if the universe doesn't have a naturalistic origin, but was created by God? How much greater would our understanding of the world be if more scientists focused on studying present phenomena rather than trying to fit stories about the past with observed data?

Instead of questioning whether the Big Bang assumption is true, astrophysicists prefer to perform endless "gymnastics" to try to make the mounting contrary data fit their theory about how the universe began.

Only if the union is against the unethical request. In some cases the union may be for it, which makes it even harder to push back.

You don't need to join a union to push back against unethical feature requests.