We are slowly moving on replacing this stuff with implementations written in pure julia.
Currently the femtolisp parser is only used during bootstrapping the core systems so that we can parse the pure-julia parser and then we switch over to the julia parser. The same process is now happening with the femtolisp implementation of the lowering pass.
My night and weekend project the last month or so has been creating and implementing a package that provides a pure s-exp syntax for Julia that lowers to Julia's AST directly, and lately been churning through (mostly Opus is doing the actual churning) all the problems of creating an automatic transpiler for Julia to this other syntax.
Not ready to share just yet but nearly at the point that there are no Julia-syntax fallbacks in the entire base/stdlib and a femtolisp parser for the sexp syntax is able to build a complete Julia sysimage from the transpiled files. Already verified that I can transpile the .jl source of the Julia package for the syntax into the syntax, then use that transpiler to transpile again and load into the running sexp repl, then use that transpiler on the source again and get byte identical code, and along the way am testing to ensure that the entire Julia test suite passes in the sysimage being built.
So, with any luck here soon I'll have a sexp syntax for Julia that builds from raw transpiled sexp-syntax source and uses sexp syntax natively in the repl but can transpile & load any Julia code. Fingers crossed.
I'm aware of --lisp but it's not very good imo lol.
I agree. Was trying a tongue in cheek comment about how the Julia/LISP discussion over the years often would have someone point to julia --lisp as an argument for Julia being a LISP dialect.
German electricity prices have been falling for the last 3 years. They've been below the pre-war levels for a while now.
Hardware prices, especially with the current chaos, and the huge spike in demand they've doubtless seen is more than enough to explain this price hike though.
1. The EU would face higher tariffs on their exports to the USA. Now mostly struck down
2. The EU would not retaliate with tariffs of its own. Not really a big deal since the only US export to the EU that's worth worrying about are digital services, and those aren't subject to tariffs anyways.
3. The EU promised to buy lots of LNG and make investments in the USA to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. This was a bald-faced lie on the part of the EU negotiators. Even if the EU wanted to actually do this, they have no power or mechanism to make member states and companies within those member states buy more LNG or make more investments in the USA. This was just an empty promise.
___
So if the tariffs are struck down, we're more or less back to where we started.
> The EU promised to buy lots of LNG and make investments in the USA to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. This was a bald-faced lie on the part of the EU negotiators. Even if the EU wanted to actually do this, they have no power or mechanism to make member states and companies within those member states buy more LNG or make more investments in the USA. This was just an empty promise.
The amounts named were also, ah, suspiciously similar to the amount of LNG Europe would generally buy, and the amount that would be invested in the US as a matter of course. It was kind of "well, the thing that would ordinarily happen will happen".
Personally, I find a REPL-based programming interface to be the most flexible and powerful way to interact with code.
My typical interface is that I have an editor open where I write package code, and then I have a julia REPL open beside it where I load the package (or includet the script or testset). Any changes I make with my editor to functions or structs in the package / script / testset are automatically reflected in my running julia session via Revise.jl.
I then execute the functions interactively from the REPL, introspect into data or generated code, debug, run benchmarks etc all from the REPL.
GUIs are great for many things, but they lack the flexibility I need for my day to day work.
I really like Zulip, and I'd like to migrate my friend-group onto it, but it probably won't happen. I think Zulip is just a bit too heavy-duty for a friend group chatting, and also lacks the visual polish that a lot of people want.
For now, my friends and I mostly just use Signal for group chats, which leaves a lot to be desired, but IMO is still just a better experience for our purposes than Zulip or Matrix.
That said, if you have friends who are keen to try things out, I would definitely recommend at least trying Zulip and see what you like and what you don't. It has a lot of really nice features and things to love.
Having interacted a fair amount with the Zulip devs over the years, and being an open-source product, I believe that they have no plans or intention of trying to fleece or milk self-hosted users or small communities.
It sometimes feels like a psy-op to read through all these gushingly positive comments, when you know how the average person feels about it.
I get that it's not actually something nefarious, but it really does suck that the people who like this garbage are so loud about it that it gets shoved down the rest of the public's throats.
I think the extremely public, visible, every-dat nature of architecture gives it certainly responsibilities that are different from other visual art forms.
The modern trend of trying to make art that's repulsive to people with "common", "uneducated" sensibilities is one thing when it's constrained to the inside of a museum, but it's awful when it takes up this much space in public.
> It sometimes feels like a psy-op to read through all these gushingly positive comments, when you know how the average person feels about it.
Yes, exactly!
A common theme among these weird ideological group-thinks is political undertones.
> "Today, criticism on brutalism and modernism is mostly voiced by those on the far-right side of the political spectrum, precisely because of the association between modernism and the post-war welfare state"
It’s not an exaggeration to say that every day of the year, from maybe noon to midnight, these buildings are surrounded by people enjoying the city - walking along the river, going to arts events, eating out, walking between offices. It’s a hugely popular free public resource that is a massive good for Londoners. Previously (not here but at other points on the river) the water front was private - accessible only to people inside buildings - or derelict, like the areas around Tate Modern and Tower Bridge. This is one of the most human and whatever the opposite of alienating spaces in London today.
The Southbank Centre is one of the cultural gems of London and, I'd argue, the world ... you can have your opinion on what it looks like from the outside, but what goes on inside and around it make it incredibly valuable ... so what I assume is your off-the-cuff remark is way off.
I was talking about the architecture, which is the topic of this thread. Of course it's the home to great art, but that does not make it a *building* worthy of architectural distinction or historical protection.
That's fair, but arguable. At this stage I think the architecture and it's reason to be are now so deeply intertwined that you cannot separate them (or would ruin it with the attempt).
I've seen instances where a building is all about what takes place there, demolished, re-built, and lose their soul and former purpose.
I can easily see that happening with the Southbank. It's iconic and embedded so deeply at this stage, despite the the various opinions on its looks.
GP was mocking you (not calling you names) because your comment was just a classic uninformed (some would even say stupid) opinion, and was presented as you "looking at wind as objectively as I can"
Maybe if you look at the comment context a little more objectively, you'll agree there's some thing quite funny about it.
_______________________________
Putting that aside though, lets look at your claim:
> there's serious ecological problems with these turbines, the materials cant be recycled, and their uninstallation is incredibly costly
First of all, it's only one subset of the materials (the fiberglass in the blades) that are difficult to recycle, the vast majority of the actual material is highly recyclable steel. The blades in a modern offshore turbine usually weigh around 80 metric tons at the high end.
Your typical modern offshore wind turbine has rated output of around 15 MW of power, with a yearly capacity factor of around 40% at the lower end, so an average output of around 6 MW. Multiply that by the more or less standard 25 year rated lifetime of the turbine, that means you can expect the turbine to produce around 1300 GWh of electrical energy over the course of its life.
How much energy is 1300 GWh? Well, to get 1300 GWh of electricity out of a high-efficiency (i.e. 50% efficiency) natural gas power plant, you'd need to burn around 175,000 tons of natural gas, (dumping all of the waste product into the gigantic open sewer we call our atmosphere).
That's about 3 orders of magnitude more mass in natural gas that will need to be burned (and don't forget, natural gas is non-recyclable!!1!!1) than the blades weigh.
This means that you went and tossed a thousand wind turbine blades in an incinerator for every turbine you actually install, you'll still break even on the amount of non-recyclable material
So forgive me for not taking your complaints very seriously.
There's all the same waste products being dumped into the atmosphere during the production of the entire turbine itself, it's not entirely different.
And you didn't address the environmental damage to the oceans. this case is specifically greenlighting off-shore windfarms. Iif this was on land, i wouldn't care what people do with their own money and resources. But it's got serious implications for whales, of which there's a decreasing amount of. It's not foolish to care about endangering species that are important parts of underwater ecosystems.
You should take complaints seriously in general, I'm not mocking you for your point of view, those are nice details, and I take them seriously, so why are you mocking me? Mocking people over serious topics is just a display of insincerity. you seem to care a lot about the topic, so why not represent yourself better?
> There's all the same waste products being dumped into the atmosphere during the production of the entire turbine itself, it's not entirely different.
Those are also tiny marginal percentages relative to the amount of fossil fuels that are saved, even if everything is constructed from virgin materials instead of recycled.
> But it's got serious implications for whales, of which there's a decreasing amount of. It's not foolish to care about endangering species that are important parts of underwater ecosystems.
The largest threats to whale populations currently are
1. changing ocean temperatures and PH stressing them, and disrupting their food chains
2. overfishing disrupting their food supply and stressing them out
3. getting entangled in fishing nets, and being struck by boat propellers
Wind turbine installation may be a brief stressor when piles are driven into the seabed (but there are mitigation techniques), and operating noise from wind farms might be a mild irritant for them, but it's quite minor relative, and geographically constrained compared to other more significant day to day noise sources in the ocean such as a shipping, drilling, and fishing.
The impact of wind turbines on whales is inconsequential compared to other much more acute impacts (especially net entanglement and boat strikes). There's a pretty wide literature on this.
> You should take complaints seriously in general, I'm not mocking you for your point of view, those are nice details, and I take them seriously, so why are you mocking me? Mocking people over serious topics is just a display of insincerity. you seem to care a lot about the topic, so why not represent yourself better?
I don't take your complaints seriously because your complaints (whether by accident or by design) happen to very closely coincide with deliberate misinformation spread primarily by fossil fuel companies to try and limit threats to their business model.
claiming something is a tiny percentage while not providing numbers is just a failed argument
you've not properly accounted for anything in support of your own argument through anything other than anecdotes and insults
given i havent provided data, ive certainly not provided insults
there's the cement to hold the turbine in place, the production of the turbine, the making of the materials that go into it, and the transportation of everything in this chain of events
even the mining of the materials has environmental impacts that aren't easily quantifiable, you've simply peaked through a door that most people can't realistically walk through
i have a hard time believing you've somehow accounted for all of these things in privileged enough manner to go around calling other people stupid
there's all sorts of environmental impacts that are simply difficult to calculate
and whales are a big topic, as the same people making the wind turbines are the ones whose overfishing are hurting the population (the chinese). should providing money for their economy via the purchase of wind turbines effect the number of whales being hunted, then what's the difference? the changing pH isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be, and it's not widely consistent across the entire ocean either, none of this is simple enough to just brush off
I just downloaded the archive (from the usual Julia downloads page) for ARM on the phone and put a link to the binary in /usr/local/bin — same as on Linux desktop. But I did this in the proot Debian environment.
Ah I see. Even after installing proot Debian I couldn't get juliaup to work, but I'll have to give it a shot manually installing the binary and linking to /usr/local/bin
Currently the femtolisp parser is only used during bootstrapping the core systems so that we can parse the pure-julia parser and then we switch over to the julia parser. The same process is now happening with the femtolisp implementation of the lowering pass.
reply