shaunsingh0207

Chrome also has objectively better performance (https://www.phoronix.com/news/Firefox-Chrome-109-Benchmarks), especially for 3D performance. I'm sure on modern machines both browsers are more than fast enough, but I'm not quite sure why everyone seems to think firefox is faster.

On the other hand, I feel like the nyxt browser (https://nyxt.atlas.engineer) has a spot on HN, its very much like emacs in the sense everything is just Common Lisp you can redefine. Its definitely still considerably slower than chrome and firefox, webkit doesn't perform all too well.

Asahi's linux GPU drivers (currently the OpenGL one, and the rust one in the future) are both being written in rust as well.

For me it's the one-way-ness of it, can't find a nice work to describe it.

Most programs in languages will go outward and then inward, lisps just go outward. I quite like the "look" of python as well, except that its missing the colorful parenthesis and the expressiveness that makes lisp so powerful

I quite like how fennel handles it as well, {} for standard lua tables and [] for arrays, but [] stands to define variables in a let binding. Of course this comes from Lua's quirks, but its a nice, sane way to handle it.

While I agree that RPN should be taught in schools, ease of parsing is not a reason to force them on everyone. Similarly, just because people get accustomed to lisp does not mean it's a good language. I say this as a lisp "enthusiast" using it for pretty much everything I can.

Whatever language we teach in schools should be simple and quite natural to get the hang of, and should be somewhat "industry standard" if they choose to continue with said language.

Python is a great candidate because of its reliance on indents and lack of delimeters. While "we" consider lisp's parenthesis incredibly useful, new programs find it scary. Forcing it on people does not make it any less scary.

For me lisp wouldn't be enjoyable without good tooling. Parinfer, paredit, emacs, slynk, etc. make lisp enjoyable to use and edit. Python has the benefit of - you can quickly graphically install it - pip is incredibly easy to use, sometimes to its detriment. - you can edit python sanely in any text editor (even notepad).

Perhaps a lesson in introductory lesson to hy in their compsci python classes would be nice though

Not sure I follow, you can manually call sos on the Apple Watch by holding down the side button (and keeping it held down). If it detects a fall and you don't respond within a set amount of time, it will call emergency services.

The automatic fall detect is the cherry on top, I don't think it gets any easier than pressing a (very light) button for not much time. And if your hands are fucked as well, you can tell Siri to call 911

If you can't speak, can't access the button, can't swipe, and it didn't detect the fall, then I don't think any piece of tech is going to help. You are fucked

Currently googles problems might map well with your problems. The issue (and fear) is what if google's problems change in the future and don't line up with yours?

> Name a program you can write in Rust that I can't write in Go

Name a program you can write in <language> that I can't write in <language> is a terrible way to compare languages. That applies for any Turing complete language, but I wouldn't write a game in emacs lisp.

> Go is more "limited" than Go

Assuming you mean "go is more 'limited' than rust, you can write all software in both languages. I'm not sure who claimed it either because both the linked article and comment above you don't.

The justification for C++/Rust is largely the same as the justification for any lower level language: performance. Theres a lot of cases where GC pauses are a no go (pun intended). Well written rust is going to be more performant than well written go. You have greater control over threads, for better or for worse.

The benefit of rust in particular is the approach to memory management, package management, and how hard rust it is to shoot yourself in the foot. Rust filled a gap where people wanted a performant, expressive low level language without the memory hassle that came with c/c++.

It also (should) handoff a lot more seamless, as seen on the HomePod mini

NVLink was designed for exactly that use case, pooling memory.

From my personal experience, modern apple trackpads are still ahead of the competition, but not leagues ahead.

They're still massive, and the whole "Force Touch" thing is very nice. Both being able to click anywhere on the trackpad, including the top where the hinge would usually be, and the "press harder to do something" functionality is more useful than I thought it would be.

I find that I can keep my hand on the home row and just reach over my thumb for trackpad use 90% of the time on the MacBook, whereas with the xps and razor blade the top 10-20% of the trackpad feels unusable (and they're pretty small)

> Rust, the language, is more complex. People take advantage of the complexity and implement all sorts of macros and templates.

I'd say you pay for the complexity when you learn the language. Once satisfying the borrow checker becomes second nature, it feels just as fast to write as go (in my opinion, after switching from go to rust for most of my scratchpad code)

Thats what surprises me as well. If I give chatGPT anything that requires actual thought or reasoning put into it, it just produces gibberish.

It's great for getting a blueprint to start from. I recently had to write a gtk+rust client, and I asked chatGPT to give me some starter code which largely worked.

All the chatGPT hype feels the same to me as the copilot hype from a while back. The people who got the most excited about it are the same people who its going to replace.

These specific subjects shouldn't be solely about memorization, rather they should teach kids how to link that information together to solve problems (or in the case of history, avoid them in the future).

Thats the issue. The point of an AP test shouldn't be that the problems are difficult. But currently thats what it's all about. They're just trying to test that kids are capable of surviving a "rigorous academic curriculum".

[1] https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/about-ap/ap-a-glance

Part of the history exam is just that, internalizing the subject.

The part that ap fails to deliver on is the written portion, where it asks you to extrapolate your own insights. If chatgpt can solve the problem that should require human insight, is the prompt really testing students properly?

Personally I use Telescope, which has a commands menu you can use to fuzzy find through all known commands similar to shift-p. That being said, I've removed almost all of my neovim plugins. stock vim/neovim is surprisingly capable