But IMO that's one reason weird UX/design is not uncommon and can persist in dev ecosystems. The intended users are more proficient than average and most are able to work around most issues.
If the goal is evaporative distillation, it makes no sense to use a process that begins with filling and conaminating the entire system with contaminated water
You'd have more success keeping the container clean (full of air) and pumping all the air out of it, which is still probably less efficient than other means like boiling
IMO wardrobe concerns should come far behind health. Is this not a serious "all hands on deck" health situation? Are you sure considering custom tailoring is the correct life prioritization to take right now?
Maybe their communities are blank slates where innovations in "distributed power grid" systems can happen? Have heard that traditional power grids are "unidirectional" and have had some trouble with solar installations popping up.
IMO it's time for a reckoning of what's systematic/automated vs what's not.
For example, "no expectation of privacy in public" meant you should be okay with appearing in someone else's (manual) photo while out in public. However, I don't think that should extend to persistent systematic surveillance, e.g. suppose every Tesla's camera captures were combined with person recognition systems and tracking.
Just because something is theoretically okay at a small scale doesn't mean the same applies at large scales.
Another example: Society funds public roads via government taxes for personal use and for regulated commercial use. Uber systematically consumes public road space under the guise of personal use vehicles, for commercial use.
It's a container with certain behaviors and guarantees making them easy and reliable to manipulate and compose. A practical example is a generic List, that behaves like:
List[1, 2, 3], i.e. ("new", "unit", "wrap") to create, containing obj(s)
map(func) to transform objs inside, List[A] -> List[B]
first(), i.e. ("unwrap", "value") to get back the obj
flat_map(func), i.e. ("bind") to un-nest one level when func(a) itself produces another List, e.g. [3, 4].flat_map(get_divisors) == flatten_once([[1, 3], [1, 2, 4]]) == [1, 3, 1, 2, 4]
Consider the code to do these things using for loops -- the "business logic" func() would be embedded and interlaced with flow control.
The same is true of Maybe, a monad to represent something or nothing, i.e. a "list" of at most one, i.e. a way to avoid "null".
Consider how quickly things get messy when there are multiple functions and multiple edge cases like empty lists or "null"s to deal with. In those cases, monads like List and Maybe really help clean things up.
IMO the composability really can't be understated. "Composing" ten for loops via interlacing and if checks and nesting sounds like a nightmare, whereas a few LazyList and Maybe monads will be much cleaner.
Also, the distinction monads make with what's "inside" and what's "outside" make it useful to represent and compartmentalize scope and lifetimes, which makes it useful for monads like IO and Async.
First suggestion is impractical. Not going to be able to memorize 100 names to look up and research later
Second suggestion should already be happening, but doesn't capture the desired use case.
The use case is this: in physical life, there is a gradient of "boundaries/leashes" to match maturity and development. For example, the gradient of movie ratings, or:
Very young - stay within arms reach/sight
Young - stay in the yard/park/neighborhood
Child - stick with what's familiar, I'll be nearby
Pre-teen - go and try it, I can be right there
Teen - go and try it yourself, call me if needed
We could argue about whether a gradient is too steep or shallow, but the point is that one exists.
In contrast, digital in many ways is very often all-or-nothing
Not saying digital should be "gradient-ed" in all cases, that leads to tone-deaf rules and bad security practices. Just trying to show what the problem is
I think there is a difference. Because software is so flexible and quick to build, it's orders of magnitude easier to build something known and understood.
A promising startup with its systems in a knot, but their initial team is still on retainer? Brains can be picked, abstraction boundaries placed, surgical rewrites deployed. Despite the mess, they still understand it, and development can expand.
It remains to be seen if AI-generated code is recoverable, if any existing strategies can be applied so humans can contribute, or if the company is forever beholden to AI providers to release a better AI to manage/improve what they've already got.
At the outset, all businesses seek to grow faster than the average/stock market. Five years later, half will do better than average, and half will do worse than average.
Saying that the half that did worse should have instead invested into the market, five years ago, is kind of meaningless.
Yes, I've seen a video file that changes resolution mid-video, but it's more of a party trick since not all players handled it well
Specifically, I saw a group chat program rendered it "correctly" (Discord? I don't remember), so the embedded video would re-flow the rendered chatroom while playing
it lacks clear and enforced type restrictions which help with clear code contracts
Not anymore! Gradual typing is supported by the core language and pyright is a fantastic incremental type checker that you can use both in your editor and in CI.
people think im stupid all the time so what can i say or do in my posts so that when people get mad or call me names or call me stupid i can just say hey it was satire that way i dont look stupid thats pretty smart right
heres an example for you
for example i talked about how minion butts ...
Satiric jokes tend to be clever and are to be taken lightly/not seriously. Toilet humor and being offensive/getting offended is the opposite. Try some self-deprecating humor first.
write english good because youre post will sound clearer you know with good english than for example bad english since you really cant have sentences that run on forever with no commas and no structure it sounds really not smart like a word salad or accident
Satire and surrealism swiftly subvert societal standards, systematically suggesting subtle surprises. Setup serves as the stage, securing the space for subversion -- strategically shifting the spectator's sense, so as to swiftly shatter their expectations.
(I'm bad at jokes, so just wanted to make sure my S was obvious enough)
But IMO that's one reason weird UX/design is not uncommon and can persist in dev ecosystems. The intended users are more proficient than average and most are able to work around most issues.