theoh

The scenario I'm talking about is not synthesising a RAW file from scratch, but being able to freely edit it and save the result back into a RAW file that looks "original". I don't think you've made any statements that indicate that doing that would be complex.

Again, this is not about faking a RAW file from scratch, just being able to edit it in place.

Interestingly, some major photo competitions require 'original' RAW files to be submitted along with processed jpegs. The idea is that they can check that the image hasn't been modified in a way that breaks the rules.

Of course, software people know that it would be tedious but technically straightforward to concoct a fake RAW file from another 'raw' format such as a PPM image. The stakes in these competitions can be quite high so it's a bit disconcerting that they rely on a presumption that converting RAW files to editable images is a one-way process.

Just the other day someone posted something here about defunctionalizing continuations. That's the way to go: whatever amount of state the server has to hold, you have to hold anyway, and clever defunctionalization will let you just hold that amount even with a continuation-based approach.

The paper is literally about doing away with the inversion of control.

The concept of continuations is well-established and they have their uses. They have been part of the landscape for years. They can be confusing, and that's impossible to separate from their power.

The inversion of control that this paper is talking about is the way an application running on a webserver typically gets called by the browser rather than the other way around. Continuation-based webservers reverse this inversion and create an illusion of continuity of control flow on the server side. The application is suspended when a page is sent to the browser and resumed (via a continuation) when the response arrives. So this is about permitting server-side applications to be written in a nicer style as far as control flow is concerned.

I think you are getting downvoted because your comment more or less says that you don't know much about the background, and haven't read and understood the paper, but are inclined to dismiss it anyway.

This comment is like a red rag to a bull for me, because why wouldn't some artists want a basic grasp of calculus?

Bear in mind that a secondary education, for most people, involves learning the basics of calculus. You might be thinking that all artists are bad at math or too stupid to grasp calculus. You might be thinking that there are no applications of calculus in art. I don't know. But given the role artists are supposed to play in society, it seems pretty reasonable to expect that some of them will have an interest in learning calculus to a high school level like a significant fraction of the non-specialist public.

A concrete example of this might be an artist who is interested in systems theory from an ecological perspective. Once you start talking about stocks and flows (of fish or minerals or greenhouse gases) then calculus and differential equations are really the next thing to tackle.

I don't know the Observable folks personally, but I've been watching what they post on Twitter. It's not snobbery to say that the level of polish and sophistication present in what they put out (in terms of the reactive architecture and the graphic side of it) is second to none. Their product has got so much class that the idea that they would spend time on SEO is kind of incongruous, right?

Aeronautics is (still) an incredibly glamorous field, and fighter jets and aviation disasters are a stereotypical topic of fascination for male engineers. HN is all about the "cool", charismatic side of engineering, and it doesn't get much cooler than critiquing warplanes and analysing air disasters.

Geeking out about this kind of topic is routine for people with an interest in engineering. And let's be clear: it really is just a matter of geeking out, people getting a thrill out of playing at "appearing to really know their stuff".