testuser66

It's hard to move browsers permanently if you're not prepared. I moved to FF Quantom for a bit, but had to regularly open Chrome to get passwords etc. And the Chrome assholes removed the password export (or at least I could not for the life of me get it to work at the time)

I ended up going back for a bit and added a password manager, and now I can move between browsers easily - but as I said, it's not always straightforward, especially for _most_ non-tech users.

Everyone that is fully against killing insects has likely never lived anywhere that has insects.

And thus, a new law was born.

You do realise that storing them (be it Google, LastPass, or any other hopefully trusty manager) is safer than carrying them around on you, right?

Have been using Ecosia and I have to do a `g` search pretty much daily. Though the use Bing underneath, so maybe it's worth giving DuckDuckGo a try

I've been using both VSCode and JetBrains IDEs with their VIM plugins. The VSCode one is kind of shitty, but overall both do the job well enough that as a not-super-proficient-vim-master-guru I don't really lack any features.

And you get all the IDE stuff as well. Pretty much a win-win there. (if the vim functionality is good enough for you)

> within couple of decades

We already do.

And it doesn't really need to. Consider this:

    from functools import singledispatch
    from typing import Union

    @singledispatch
    def myfunc(arg:Union[int, str]):
        print("Called with something else")
    
    @myfunc.register
    def _(arg:int):
        print("Called the one with int")
    
    @myfunc.register
    def _(arg:str):
        print("Called the one with str")

    myfunc(123)
    myfunc("123")

Everything works as you'd expect, and the IDE's type hints are accurate as long as you actually put the correct type hint

    def myfunc(arg:Union[int, str]):

My bad - I meant this but didn't know how to format code so that is showed the stars

    def func(*args, **kwargs)

I am in full support of actual kwargs with names, it's the wildcard ones that I don't like.

I fully agree that named kwargs is perfectly acceptable, but this is the version I think is horrible:

    def func(*args, **kwargs) 

is valid and completely ambiguous - you have no idea what it's doing unless you read the source, and track down how it branches out. IDEs are stopped dead in their tracks as they aren't going to parse the logic to figure it out

And yes it's not the most common approach, but I have seen it enough times to despise it. This overloading approach removes the need for it so I'm all for that.

On one hand - I agree, overloading isn't great. On the other hand having a `def func(args, kwargs)` is a pain the ass for everyone involved (people & IDEs): you have no idea what the args or kwargs could be without reading the source.

If you can get away with just a bunch of named kwargs after the arguments that is fine, but I'd take overloading over the `args, kwargs` garbage any day, even if that is the more "pythonic" way.

Is this any different than the debugger visualisations that other editors/IDEs have?

Genuinely curious, because if I'm understanding this correctly, it's just another front-end like what VSCode/Atom(probably)/CLion/Visual Studio have been doing for years if not decades.

I guess what I'm asking is: does this do a better job than the others?

I mean sure that's better, but now Apple is tracking you instead and you got ripped off $340 for it

It's a PDF.

> I would suggest that this is change, not a norm in the last few decades.

I am not so sure that we changed so rapidly. It would also make sense that this is not new, and it has just become more apparent in the last few decades, as people have been increasingly communicating with with more other people than ever before.

I think the vast majority of people never had the reason/opportunity to acquire critical thinking skills. It has been discussed by philosophers hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago, so I think it's safe to assume it's not new.

But regardless, I believe the real issue here is that we are not doing much to teach people to think critically.

It's all about learning more things, which in turn expands what you could possibly think - the human mind's ideas are limited to what it already knows or has experienced.

Learning new things expands that, allowing you to make new and unique connections between ideas.

Knowing more will help your future learning too - many ideas from separate fields are similar. Once you have learned one, your brain can easily learn the other ones, as it just maps the concept.

Many people have said it's about perseverance, My take on that is that it is perseverance in learning. I don't know what the IQ fuss is about. It's about as useless as all the other categorisations such as the Myers Briggs Personality Types.

Don't let yourself be categorised by a made up number, based on the ideas of the 1900s that have nowadays been mostly proven wrong or, at the very least, unreliable at best.

Learning and doing will break any glass ceilings you may think there are. The people who are at the top of their fields got there by years of excruciatingly hard work that is often forgotten. (forgotten not as in that it didn't matter, but as in people looking at them often think they just became top of their fields in a fortnight, and forget their actual life's journey that led them there)