WillDaSilva

What you include as a first-class element in your languages, versus what is packed away in a library, will affect what developers do with your language.

For instance, Numpy provides array-language [1] capabilities to Python, but because it isn't a first-class element in the language Python is not thought of as an array language, and using it as one would be a bit clunky.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Array_programming

The most common scenario in which you may be without the sqlite package is when you build Python from source, which is fairly common nowadays thanks to tools like pyenv.

Also the FreeBSD Python package doesn't come with sqlite by default.

Not all distributions of CPython 3 come with sqlite, as it's an optional feature that is only included when the sqlite library is found at compile time.

Why were you planning to migrate in the first place?

Good question. Not sure. Maybe my mindset is too negative in general. Maybe I was prompted to take a negative stance towards it because of the use of the word "stop", as in "Stop Waiting for Godot" as opposed to "Start Using Godot".

This digital copy of the book was released in February 2020

Ah cool. And apparently that play it where Godot got its name from. TIL. Excerpt from Wikipedia:

> Linietsky stated in a presentation that the name "Godot" was chosen due to its relation to Samuel Beckett's play Waiting for Godot, as it represents the never-ending wish of adding new features in the engine, which would get it closer to an exhaustive product, but never will.

The post title was a tad misleading - I got the impression that it was saying that Godot isn't ready and we shouldn't wait for it to become ready. I suppose it got my attention by being like that, and that was the point. Maybe it'd've been better as "Stop Waiting for Godot - Game Jam".

Happy to see Terry Cavanagh is trying Godot. I love Super Hexagon and VVVVVV, and am planning to play Dicey Dungeons in the future. Looking forward to see what he makes.

This is a wonderful example of how much more effort is required to counter a false claim than to make said false claim. Thank you for putting in the effort.

Could be to avoid wasting time

The idea is to disincentivize the dangerous thing without outright banning it, or imposing complicated regulations such as assessing whether a person has a legitimate need for the dangerous thing.

Shaun provides a nuanced overview of the topic here: https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go

We can take this idea further, both in justification and scope: intellectual property should not exist.

This video makes the case for the abolishment of IP pretty well: https://youtu.be/mnnYCJNhw7w

A horse walks into a bar. The bartender asks the horse if they're an alcoholic considering all the bars they frequents, to which the horse replies "I think not!". POOF! The horse disappears.

This is the point in time when all the philosophy students in the audience begin to giggle, as they are familiar with the philosophical proposition of "cogito ergo sum", or "I think, therefore, I am".

But to explain the concept beforehand would be putting Descartes before the horse.

You can have any Steam game that supports Windows run through Proton, and then install and run Cheat Engine within that game's Proton/Wine prefix.

Definitely not as user friendly, but it does work. Alternatively you can use Game Conqueror, but it very basic compared to Cheat Engine.

Interesting idea, though I'm not aware of any desiccants that would be appropriate for the scale we'd need to operate at here. Silica gel, for instance, wouldn't work because there's too much water to handle. Dehumidifiers could be used instead, but they heat up the air as they dry it out. I believe desiccants also heat up the air, but only slightly. Maybe they would heat up the air a significant amount if they were removing enough water from it for this scenario.

> Supplements can mitigate the problems to an extent but are inferior to natural sun exposure.

I've never heard of such a claim, and that seems unintuitive. Why would that be? Do you have a source you could direct me to to learn more about this?

Swamp coolers do not work in high humidity. Running cool water from underground over oneself works, but is unsustainable and impractical. Going underground to someplace cool is also sometimes an option that does not require electricity, but is often impractical and highly situational.

Ultimately all that really works in our modern world at scale in such a heat wave is powered air conditioning, so ensuring that electrical power is not interrupted during such an event is of paramount importance if we are to avoid this new sort of natural disaster.

I love the idea of using k as a DSL (domain specific language) for working on time-series data. Something like it would also be great for working on n-dimensional arrays, but unfortunately k doesn't really support working with them in any elegant or efficient way.

Python and Numpy would benefit a lot from having something like k to express vector/matrix operations elegantly.

Mainly time-series data processing through kdb+. There's an IDE and language tools for q (which is a thin layer over k) that is primarily written in q called: https://code.kx.com/developer/

Unfortunately it's closed source so I can't share much about the world of application and library development with q/k. If you want to learn more about how it's used though, I'd recommend checking out KX and kdb+.

As anyone who uses such a language could tell you, you get used to the symbols quite quickly, and commit their meaning into memory. For that reason I mostly view the heavy use of symbols in a programming language as a negative only insofar as it makes it intimidating to newcomers.

The only other thing can I find can be an issue with the heavy use of symbols in a language is that it can lead to a certain degree of inflexibility in the language. There are only so many symbols that can be used, and once they're all used up your options are either use normal variable names (and reduce the number of ideas that can be expressed concisely), or make symbols context dependent.

The designers of k went to some lengths to avoid the use of variable names, so some symbols are better than others in terms of clarity. Some mean the same thing everywhere, but others are heavily context dependent in an effort to reuse the limited amount of symbols they have at their disposal.

k is a great domain-specific language, but struggles at being a good general purpose language for a variety of reasons. I'd love to be able to use it for data processing inside of other languages. Let the other less expressive but more robust languages handle the control flow, library interactions, etc., and then run k code to work with data as vectors and tables. If only k supported n-dimensional arrays, then it'd be very interesting to see what it could do if integrated with something like Numpy, but I could spend all day wishing k was better than it is. I'm very happy with what it's able to do, and generally groan when I find myself having to use other less expressive data processing tools (which is practically everything).

The /0 1 gives it away practically immediately for me, but that might just be because I've seen/used that particular example so many times.

> It has become axiomatic to say that the world is becoming like science fiction. [...]

Says a claim is axiomatic, and then immediately proceeds to justify the claim.

Either this author doesn't know what "axiomatic" means, or the same sort of thing that happened to "literally" is now happening to "axiomatic".

People can quit their job, and then meet their needs using their savings (if they have any), or welfare. The same is not true for health insurance.

> The expression to feed into an anonymous algorithm that we don’t just not like something — that we actually dislike it.

The author seems to assume that this sort of interaction would lead to these algorithms recommending similar content less, but these algorithms tend to prioritize engagement, not enjoyment. Downvotes are a form of engagement, so don't be surprised if these algorithms use your downvote patterns to learn what to show you to make you angry, upset, and engaged.

You're right that challenging legislature can improve it, but it would be naive to assume that Toyota has the goal of improving it for anyone/anything other than their bottom line. They are solely driven by their profit motive, and so it is safe to assume they are never participating in the legislative process in good faith, i.e. for the betterment of the public and the world. Instead they are only participating in the legislative process with the expectation that they can gain additional power and profit.

Once we take that into consideration, it's hard to see their pushback against electric vehicles in a good light.

To your first point: there should be a term because it is clearly a useful idea that people want to communicate. The ambiguity or inelegance of what current exists to express the idea means we should at least desire a better way of expressing it - that is, a term for it.

To your second point: "son" or "daughter" is not sufficiently general, and it is gendered. What if I wanted to express the idea of adult offspring without knowing (or caring about) the gender of that person?

I can see where you're coming from - having a browser support all these protocols seems like poor design. Let everything do what they're good at, and all that. But usability suffers when users need to install and open different applications for every protocol they want to use. I think it might be good if there was some robust way to provide low-level browser extensions (that would probably be loaded in as shared objects).

That way Firefox could drop (or never add) support for FTP, bittorrent, etc., but those could still be access within the browser by installing the extensions through your package manager. I'd love it if I could send files to friends using bittorrent through the browser without having to rely on sites like instant.io or file.pizza. I do love those sites, but they're no replacement for a proper torrent client.

In a perfect world we wouldn't have to move everything into the browser for users to consider using it. Alas, we do not live in a perfect world. On that note, this probably couldn't be done because of security concerns. Making it easy for people to hand over low-level control of their browser would be problematic.

The (mostly) declarative nature of SQL is not something the post is criticizing. You could have a good declarative language for relational database that doesn't suffer from the things the post criticizes.

Did you mean to post this elsewhere? I don't see how it applies to this post.