sametmax

What do you think the animals eat ?

Now, follow the causality chain.

Things like dried beans/peas, eggs, full grain rice, sunflower seeds, whole potatoes, green leafs, tomatoes, brassicaceaes, onions, apples, bananas and carrots can all be obtained at a fair price. You can cover a lot with these, and it's much better than fried chips and pasta.

My take is more than:

- a scary amount of people of my generation are completely uneducated about food. They don't know what a balanced diet is. They don't know how to cook. They don't know where to shop. They don't know how to choose a product. They don't know how much their health is affected by this. And they rather spend an hour on facebook than starting to figure it out.

- food is hard. Our society make it harder: we have a huge quantity of low quality food at our disposal. We solved the starving problem, but replaced it with a malnutrition problem, aggravated with the desire to make money which lead to the promotion of shitty food and the production of it. Getting proper information on nutrition is a hell of confusion, contradictory messages, social pressure and guilt.

- tasty balanced food is expensive and requires time + work + planning. Anybody can buy the stuff I talked about. But if you go to your usual supermarket and buy them, they will taste like crap. In fact, it's even hard to find nice food at the farmer market nowadays. So of course they don't want to eat them. I mean, between this red plastic ball they call a tomato and a kit kat, why the hell would a kid not choose the kit kat ? Why would the exhausted parents fight again and again to force the kid to eat something themselves think taste bad ? Life is hard enough.

- there are too many of us. To feed everyone we need to use use production, processing and distribution methods that lead to crappy food. Over population affects everything, from medical care quality to democracy. Food is no exception.

- our culture is messed up. We made it so that eating meat was a social status indicator. So everybody started to want to it meat. Then everybody started to eat it every day. Producing meat is incredibly expensive, so we have to use tricks to produce such a quantity, which lead to terrible food again.

- morality is an issue. I've work in OHS for some times. The amount of disgusting things that are done to food for profit is astonishing. And people just shut up. SEP field. If you photophop food for a living, if you participate to those marketing studies, if you work in a factory making crap, if you cook in a fast food, if you sign on contracts for bad food, if you code a website for an immoral actor, you are part of the problem. I know people have many constraint, and I don't pretend to have the moral high ground. I'm part of it as well. But my point is, we are responsible too.

> It seems blindingly obvious that there are people out there who are just... dramatically more effective programmers, in a holistic net-value-to-organization/world sense. Fabrice Bellard and John Carmack, to name two that jump to mind.

Or Salvatore Sanfilippo (antirez)

Or Guido Van Rossum

All also known to be very nice people. And that would deny they are 10x :)

Sure, and we estimate it took 200 000 years to develop spoken language. However, we had to come up with it by ourselves, without any external influence.

Some primates can use a few signs from deaf language already, and combine them to make almost a sentence. The foundation seems there already. We also have no idea how much the dolphin language can convey. Your conclusion seems very definitive for a question that I meant very hypothetical and so many missing variables.

If you have 4 cores, you may want to spaw 4 children, then share stuff between them. Not just top-down.

E.G: live settings, cached values, white/black lists, etc

Good thing rust doesn't have one.

Rust seems like a great language to write other languages in. Not as convenient than a lisp but, zero-cost abstraction, safe, fast and close to the metal.

So you may be see a rustscript at some point. Some people try to implement Python in it, which I think is very interesting: https://github.com/RustPython/RustPython

After all, replacing C/C++ is the raison d'être of rust.

I wonder if there is space for only one human-level intelligent specie per world, or if it's a matter of circumstances.

Are there worlds where there are 2 or 3 radically different civilized species sharing the land ?

If we stopped killing everything and taking all the resources for ourselves, would we be able to witness the emergence of one in the next 5000 years ?

More interestingly, would we be able to actually speed up said emergence by providing stimuli to a select number of species to drive them to self-realization ?

Conveniently ignoring "in their own way".

Exactly, give it a few millennia, and some specie probably will end up like us in their own way.

We had to have bases for our current behaviors, and it's only logical we find it in other species.

I don't understand how people can imagine animals don't have feelings, thoughts, logic or a sense of existing. There is little in us that is so unique. It's like life on other planets, or additional dimensions we can't see. Yes we can't prove it now, but it would be disproving it that would really catch me by surprise given what we know now. The universe kinda like repeating patterns and continuity.

Most exhanges ask for KYC, so the BTC wallet would still be attached to your ID.

You need to do that with individuals, which is much harder, especially for a high amount of money.

Not saying this is impossible, but it's no as simple as it used to be.

There are two technical interesting take aways in this:

1 - Microsoft, and probably most big companies, have persistent tracking ID on most stuff that are hard to get rid of and can be used to identify you and devices linked to you in a fuzzy way. I mean, we know about super cookies, fingerprinting and such, but it's another to hear it being used to track somebody that was careful and using multiple anonymous accounts.

2 - BTC mixers will not protect you. Correlating one single wallet with you will make it possible to them retrace the entire history.

Because explicit is better than implicit.

It's not, it's correlation between fresh student, and what happens in the field.

See my other replies as well.

20 years after. It took 2 decades. My impression from the debate, and taking in consideration the political context, is that he saw that as the tipping point of the BDFL transition and a good test run as much as a language feature.

You can code your own wrapper for this.

Like https://github.com/Tygs/ayo

It's not as good as having it in the stdlib, because people can still call ensure_future and not await it, but it's a huge improvement and completly compatible with any asyncio code.

Guido disagrees and rejected the idea multiple time in the last 2 decades. I think he worked on Python for a long time too :)

This feature is kind of a symbol, the first real decision of the transition between the bdfl and the next era.

I'm not worried about it, but yes, it was really against python core principles.

For something as finely tuned as pylint, my sensible default and your would never be the same.

I don't want it to scream on a missing docstring for every single thing. I do want to be able to use a, b and x as variables. No, this root var is not a constant, don't ask me for uppercase. Etc.

I mean 10% of new code for which type hints are a proper use case, so mostly libs, and targeting Python 3.5+.

Of course, in a world of Python 2.7 still being a large code base and Python being used a lot for scripting, this will far from the truth for the entire ecosystem.

My metric for this is to put some of my freshest student in front of a code and see how they deal with it. How easily can they understand it ? How easily can they write it ? Debug it ?

They are most of the time a fantastic indicator of the cognitive load a feature will add in prod. Because of course a feature doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's always in a more complex context. So what's easy to understand for a student will be alright for a pro in the complexity of real life engineering. And I found the opposite to hold quite often as well.

I haven't tried the walrus on them yet, but I'm pretty sure of the result.

Disable it in pylintrc. Pylint is unusable without a good config file anyway.

It's the most controversial feature ever introduced because it goes against a lot of python culture and philosophy.

All in all the debate has been heated and long, but it has been decided that the python community will use it intelligently and rarely, but that when it matters, it can help a lot.

I'm against this feature, while I was pro f-string. However, I'm not too worried about missuse and cultural shift because I've seen 15 years of this show going on and I'm confident on it's going to be indeed tagged as "risky, use it knowing the cost" by everybody by the time 3.8 gets mainstream.

F-strings have appeared 2 versions ago. All in all, the feedback we have has been overwhelmingly positive, including on maintenance and readability.

Most code still look like traditional Python. Just like meta programming or monkey patching, the new features are used sparingly by the community. Even the less controversial type hints are here on maybe 10 percent of the code out there.

It's all about the culture. And Python culture has been protecting us from abuses for 20 years, while allowing to have cool toys.

Besides, in that release (and even the previous one), appart from the walrus operator that I predict will be used with moderation, I don't see any alien looking stuff. This kind of evolution speed is quite conservative IMO.

Whatever you do, there there always will be people complaining I guess. After all, I also hear all the time that Python doesn't change fast enough, or lack some black magic from functional languages.

Same for a washing machine 100 years ago. But once it got popular, it allowed for an entire different hoursehold to form.

Sure, but no matter how much you do this additional focus, there will be always be a few terrible persons going through the net. The only way to avoid it would be to cut down on freedom to an extreme.

It's also very expensive. The legal system, prisons, and the whole gov web is a big, slow and inflexible machine.

Removing the incentive to be an asshole is just better. But it's our job, not the job of some higher power.

I tend to see bad apples just like tornadoes or forest fires. They are natural catastrophes, and they will always be there, not matter the society we build.

The important part is how we react to those people. In that sense, I feel we are more responsible for the problem than them. Indeed, why blame a tornado ? Better learn to behave in case of one, and make houses the proper way.

So I don't think we should focus on the immorality as much as we should make sure we create generations of persons than know how to deal with it: remember bad deeds, detect manipulations, choose what they consume, etc.

Immoral yes. Ridiculous no.

People have a short memory and a strong affect toward symbolism.

Marketing just pulls the desired psychological tricks to reach their objective.

It works. Just like lying in politics works. Just like making corporate PR statements work. Just like in your face ads work. Just like showing boobs work.

It will work as long as people are cruising in their life instead of trying to build it. It will keep working because it goes with the flow of our internal mechanisms, and it takes conscious efforts to not be influenced by it. And it will keep being used because the value of doing so it far superior than the cost.