I think it's safe to say in general that a large part of the world is still insane and will always be insane. Perhaps it's just part of the human condition.
Beautiful, indeed, thanks for sharing that link. But have you got any references on your claim on the origins of polyphony? My understanding is that it is generally accepted to have developed globally, broadly speaking from homophony to heterophony to polyphony, in many different cultures.
Good to hear! I'm just about to start the process of getting my teaching qualification, but it feels really daunting to make the switch and leave my fairly comfortable job behind, where I'm well appreciated (but personally I don't feel like I'm really contributing to the world).
What subject are you teaching? Mine will be physics, if all goes well.
The _pass_ tool is an nice simple offline password manager, based on PGP, which works well for me. But I don't expect to be the victim of a targeted attack.
Indeed, any debate over who of the two is more powerful doesn't make sense. And the debate about who of the two (or 5 if we want to draw all of FAANG into it) is pointless, as they are powerful in different ways over different domains. And, second, I don't think the article claims that Facebook's power is ok, it just affirms Facebook's claim that Apple is too powerful.
I'd add to that that you might want to find yourself a part-time job, or work as a contractor, which would free up time to explore your other interests. You don't need to get all your life's fulfilment from your day job (ideally some, of course but to expect all from your day job seems a fallacy to me).
Previously GA and GTM would share private data with Google but we could at least see requests going out to google, so if you had rejected data being shared with 3rd parties or hadn't been asked at all (think GDPR) you could see that the website was breaking the law. This clever solution from Google hides it from us, consumers, so that we will just have to trust that if a website doesn't ask if it may share our details with Google, or when we tell them not to share data with Google, they actually won't do that.
Just to enphasise: for GDPR it really doesn't matter where your data is shared with a third party, from the browser or server. It's your data so they have to ask your permission to share it and otherwise they can't.
I think you simplify the problem: cochlear implants are far from perfect and many users suffer from headaches while their hearing doesn't improve to the point that they can function like any other hearing person (eg typically they will have trouble discerning multiple voices speaking at the same time, hear anything in high background noise situations). So the choice for then is between being a disabled person in the hearing world, or a normal person in the smaller signing world. That's a hard choice, I'm glad I haven't had to make it.
Sources: My linguist partner cooperates with many sign language researchers, so might be biased. But also, an acquaintance (also linguist) decided to not give their congenial deaf daughter a CI for this reason after considerable deliberation (please don't judge).
For me the problem is really that the title of the post doesn't really do justice to pieterhg's effort. To me, that feels very strongly like you're adorning yourself with borrowed plumes.
What doesn't really get mentioned in the article, is that a lot of academic software was written by a single developer. All bigger software projects, academic or not, that were only built and maintained by a single person tends to become messier and messier with time. Perhaps most software suffers from that, that over time it becomes a mess, but having more developers look at code (and enough time, and many other factors) can certainly help to keep things in better shape.
>> writing software is a low status academic activity
> This is just not true. People like: Stallman, Knuth, Ritchie, Kernighan, Norvig or Torvalds are not considered as people of low status in the academic world.
I understand the meaning of 'academic software developers' to mean 'software developers that assist in building software for other, non-CS, fields of research', but you only mention people famous within CS. I don't think this article is meant to apply to CS.
Depending on what you want to do, Python with numpy could be an option.
In terms of longevity, I don't think Python is going to repeat the 2/3 shenanigans any time soon so with python 3 you should be ok, and in terms of speed, numpy is used in many HPC applications: if applied correctly and depending on use case, writing C/C++ code that performs on par with it will be quite hard.
Indeed, I find that for my native language (Dutch) DDG is quite bad and no match for Google. I find that for simple, mainstream programming queries DDG is also fine, but if it's a little out of that mainstream, it doesn't produce anything. It seems to have a bias toward big corporate sites (eg microsoft docs) which isn't always helpful, perhaps that is due to a bias in Bing (from which it sources search results)?
Actually, there's a lot in this new release that I like (my high light is when navigating back, actually going back to where you were on that previous page, without the page jumping around as things are re-rendered on my somewhat slow phone). Yes, there are changes, but I can deal with changes (they are part of life, please get used to them) and who knows, over time (ie not within 2 hours after the update installing) we might even come to appreciate Mozilla's choices.
That is absolutely true, and probably equally true for any other web application that was wasn't maintained for 10-15 years. But this is article is talking about the ability to run older applications, not about safety concerns about doing so.
I just wanted to point out that, while Rails is far from perfect, from a software-archeological perspective there's not really much ground to pick on it. The ruby gem ecosystem (again not perfect) is at least pretty stable in the sense that 10+ year old libraries are readily accessible (as they should be!).
I had to get a Rails project from 2008 back up and running not so long ago, wasn't much more trouble than compiling ruby 1.8.7 (or was it 1.9.3?) and installing some gems. Admittedly, there were only a few dependencies in the project outside rails itself.
I guess in this case it's a little different though, as the question is about either buying something now (which isn't really needed as you say), or being in a position that you need to buy a semi-experimental machine that could potentially break half your workflows.
My wife recently upgraded from a 2015 (14?) 8GB MBA to a 16GB Pro (don't know processor, 2 USB-C ports) and had a OMG experience, mostly when running R stats analyses.