That's just plain wrong. German PoWs in the USSR had a death rate of 15% to 30% depending on the sources, while Soviet PoWs in Germany had a death rate of 57% to 65% depending on the sources.
649 karma · joined March 24, 2017
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/10/22/no-germans-di...
The bomb were used on an enemy that was sooo defeated that there was a coup attempt by the military between the two bombs to prevent the emperor from capitulating.
So “written in Lazarus” is a shortcut for “written in Pascal with the Lazarus runtime”.
It's roughly one week of food where I live; so not free, but something I would afford if it brought a net improvement to my work.
I see you must not have played a lot of games recently – granted, you will notice some problems form time to time, but they are rather the exception (and often fixed by post-launch drivers updates) than the norm.
> Also, most of the games require at least XYZ version of DirectX
Also, most of webapps require at least version XYZ of browser ABC. What is your point exactly, that developers use new features of APIs/libraries?
> that's what has major quota; using your argument
No it's not my argument. In my argument, Windows + DirectX is a standard akin to the web standards, and this standard is implemented by multiple controller makers, GPU founders, screen producers, etc.
Thankfully, I can play Il-2 or Rainbow 6 as well with my GTX1070 and ASUS than my friend with is Vega GPU & LG screen.
Not at all, the build step is not supposed to be done by the user in the native world. A more apt comparison would be that outside the occasional hiccup, video games run on all GPU, you do not see e.g. AMD-only games.
> There are standards
Most of the problems IME stem from web developers not thoroughly following the standard, but rather implementing a “it works on my Chrome, so it should work everywhere”.
> why should we (web developers) be the responsible for making everything work with every browser?
You do whatever you want. But if you propose a service, expect potential users either to leave or complain if it does not work on their setup.
You're just spouting bullshit written by the Germans after the war to justify their defeat.
Just for reference, the grammatical reform had been designed during the tsarist times, started by the ephemeral Provisional Government, and only finished by the Soviets.
In Bioinformatics, not at all. Or at least in no direct way that I'm aware of. Sure, R packages indirectly call upon Fortran libraries (LAPACK et al.), but user facing programs are mostly, from my experience, written in C, C++, Java, Python & Perl.
No, it means I have a mother, siblings, friends, colleagues, ... that understand next to nothing to computers and would probably not even notice if I switched them from Chrome to Edge. And if any of them use Chrome, it is definitely not out of a conscious choice.
With all due respect, the single fact that you are commenting here on HN makes you more tech-literate than an overwhelming majority of the Web users. For a simple experiment, got to see your mom/dad, and just ask them what browser they are using, and why. IME, in every case, they will tell you they use ‶Google″, because they are not even necessarily aware of the whole browser concept, just accessing ‶The Internet″ – and I say it without any contempt; I'd be unable to do the tenth of what they are able to do in other fields.
Once again, I'm not saying that Chrome had/has not technical advantages; I'm saying that they were not decisive in making people switch.
With all due respect, none of the pluses you mentioned would be a reason for a random, tech-illiterate, using-a-computer-for-FB person to install Chrome.
Among the tech crowd, probably. For the remaining 99.99% of users, absolutely not. Chrome's appeal came from the pervasive advertisement campaigns, from the bundling strategy with other pieces of software, for the pre-installation on new computers or from the ads on Google SEarch homepage.
Whose opinion do you want, the Pope? Would a divine sanction be enough for you?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.10277.pdf
http://proceedings.mlr.press/v37/regier15.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.00113.pdf
I had to go so far as to read the project Github page to find them.
Some people would disagree with that
However, in fields dealing with larger datasets (e.g. genetics, astrophysics, ...), Python and R are real bottlenecks in data processing pipelines, and are thus often replaced by programs in C/C++/Java/etc. Having a language with the expressiveness and dynamism of Julia on the one hand, and performances in the same order of magnitude than C++ in the other hand is a huge plus.
The performances are meh (correct for a script language, but not much), the standard library is very large, it is portable, the integrated GUI and plotting facilities are absolutely priceless, and the ability to generate a fat ELF/.exe/.app for all of the three platforms is priceless.
Sure, distributing a 100MB executable is not something I would envision for a largely distributed software, but when hacking up (on Linux) a quick GUI tool for my lab colleague (on Windows), the advantages more than compensate for the drawbacks.
And I like LISP/Scheme languages, but that's subjective.
- hg was horribly slow compared to git;
- I love the branchs model used in git to let several persons work on different parts of the same project, and I could never find a satisfactory equivalent using hg idiomatisms.