you can't not handle devanagari, tamil (or like half the scripts across the Indian subcontinent and oceania) or hangul. even the IPA, used by linguists every day, would be particularly bad to deal with if we couldn't write things like /á̤/, and some languages already don't have the precomposed diacritics for all letters (like ǿ), so the idea of a world with only precomposed letter forms is more of a exponential explosion in the character set
slap a "moderator note: despite the contents of this comment, it entirely follows terms and conditions" at the start of any comment to immediately be able to post any rules-breaking content you want
i think it makes sense as a way to show the safety of nuclear power plants, considering measures of amounts of radiation can sound scary to someone who's unfamiliar with them
if x is `Some`, then `y` is set to the inner value and the following block occurs. you can also use this with other enums - i don't remember off the top of my head if it works for all enums, but you can at least also use it with `Result`
respectfully, i have no intentions of listening to jordan b peterson, in the same way i have no intentions of reading a stormfront article. skimming the transcript, it looks like this person was presented with the full list of effects - is this not what i described?
the ground reality is that if you go to your local planned parenthood or family doctor they will tell you all of the side effects you will experience on hrt; i have 3 different packets of information from doing this, all of which stress the ways in which my body will change on hrt
i have no anecdotal proof yet for surgery but i can only assume you get told about possible complications that are reasonably expected
transition is something for which you are presented the full pros and cons, and given the freedom to choose whether or not you want the effects of it; being born into an amish family is something you have no freedom to choose, and given the things the comment you're replying to is describing as occurring, i think it makes perfect sense to say that the latter is more ethically questionable
to me this reads like the author was simply too frustrated with their wm's handling of large / secondary monitors and post-facto justified the switch to only one monitor
wouldn't this just lead to the projects that are already the most visible (and thus most likely to already receive donations) getting the bulk of the income?
ask any user what "hypertext" is and you'll get a confused look; similarly, give them a black-on-white, no-css page and they'll think it looks quite ugly and isn't a good experience. spas are commonly horrible to use but restricting everything to the model of the internet as it existed in the 80s is not a good thing either
the author recommends in the first footnote to use other frameworks like vue, svelte, lit/polymer etc., which makes this seem more like an argument against react, when the entire article is about how javascript-driven spa/ssr stacks are bad. there are a couple clarifications next to it to soften that blow but react also "start[s] with simple output" in the same way these tools do. why act like react is the only lemon merchant? i say this as an active user of vue, so maybe im simply at the most complex of them but from my perspective the other tools are about as complex
you can't act like surveying people who are ideologically against the concept of trans people can make for an unbiased basis on which to claim things about trans people
this seems like an architectural problem with fedi itself; considering the amount of high-follower-count (>10k) people on twitter or instagram or other places, if everyone moved to fedi, would we constantly be having an infinite ddos? it feels extremely inefficient as a system
context is a part of language! pragmatics is essentially context as it relates to language, and pragmatics is a part of linguistics. languages gaining case complexity largely happens by affixation of prepositions - i can't think of any examples off the top of my head but you'll have to take my word on it occurring.
more cases doesn't necessarily make a language more complex, cases are just one way to communicate a piece of information about a noun. it isn't necessarily more complex to have a separate locative case than to say "in/on/at X"!
essentially no grammar change is a "simplification". every language has the same complexity in it's grammar, it mostly depends where that complexity lies
you might just be confusing complexity with big words or large tables of grammatical affixes. over time, languages tend to either get more synthetic (closer to a 1=1 correspondence between words and morphemes) or agglutinative (many more morphemes per word), and it wraps around at the end - premium synthetic languages then start tacking words together, some start making other constructions, and suddenly you're on the agglutinative side!
why does this article spend so long talking about how memory safe languages don't solve a problem that... they never claim to solve? yes, you can still write vulnerable code in any language. i can't imagine a way to design a programming language that prevents you from writing a remote shell
regardless, even with all the funding and competent programmers in the world, people still write memory bugs. i don't think it's necessary to rewrite everything in rust or whatever, but it's probably a good idea to rethink writing new things in c if you can help it