Finally. I am not fond of code-to-diagram tools and wanted to try Mermaid, as it seems like one of the better diagramming tools around. Will definitely give it a try now.
>However, after the war started, I lost all interest in reading anything Russian. I know it's irrational, but these lost their luster instantly.
Many share the same sentiment, and some do that more strongly than others. Interestingly, it never had that effect on me, however, though I cannot speak Russian, except read, but my vocabulary is extremely limited. I think it's important to distinguish between current events and the culture, literature, and art that spans centuries.
I would be curious to see how one could seriously argue this. People making this kind of claims tend to grasp at straws to make connections and make implications much more deterministic than they actually are.
OK, I'll try - not as a rigorous argument, but not as a strawman, either.
Events shape cultures. You can find cultural remnants of past events that impacted a group decades later (especially traumatic events).
And, cultures shape events, because cultures shape the people that cause (at least some of) the events. And cultures shape peoples' response to the events.
So when you see a pattern that looks fairly similar across centuries, then you have at least some ground for suspecting that there is a stable system there - that events keep happening that shape the culture in a consistent way, and the culture keeps shaping events in ways that will give rise to the same kinds of events happening.
I wouldn't go as far as "deterministic". I don't think that much involving humans is ever truly deterministic. But there does seem to be a pattern of history, if not repeating itself, at least rhyming.
Never in my life have I been interested in any sponsor mentioned in a YouTube video. It's sad to see creators having to include these humiliation rituals in their videos just to keep their channels alive. To me, such tools are just a noise filter.
This is still the same kind of simulation, based on the Particle-based Viscoelastic Fluid Simulation paper. I updated it to use Wasm SIMD more fully with the help of Clang Vector Extensions, Compiler Explorer and Wasm Analyzer. Compiler explorer to play around with patterns and Wasm Analyzer to double check the final compilation.
Really awesome work. The WASM lets you show this off to a massively larger audience than a regular binary. I'd encourage you to make your Voxel project also using WASM, then you can easily turn it into a mobile/tablet game.
Thanks! I am definitely working on bringing more to the WASM world. I'd begun experimenting with 3D and multithreading and then last week decided to circle back to the 2d demo and polish it up a bit more.
I have a similar opinion. What puts me off about the language is it's horrendously ugly syntax and toxic, cult-like community (maybe these types are a minority, but they are awfully loud).
It's like someone took C, Python, and Perl, extracted the worst parts of all three and jammed them into one hellish language. There's not one thing about rust syntax that I enjoy. It's probably the worst out of any language I've tried, including Perl.
I would rather read someone else's Perl script than Rust.
It's very much one of these new-age languages that feel the need to reinvent every wheel and invent entirely new syntactical idioms just so they can be different.
And yeah, the "just use rust, pleb" attitude is also super offputting. I'm not interested in dealing with people like that when I'm learning a language. I have plenty of much, much less terrible options.
I can’t take anyone who says the syntax of Rust is worse than Perl.
What new syntactical idioms did Rust invent? It’s pretty plain and easy to read, anyone who has looked at C, C++, Python, C#, Java or anything modern will grok it pretty easily.
lifetimes, async, the myriads of pointer types, that poor-person's monad '?' for a single type..
Sure, you need to give the compiler a lot of hints to achieve what Rust is doing, but it does not look pretty or elegant.
Lifetimes are indeed unique, but hardly take up much syntactical space.
? operator is fine, especially if you’re used to JS or C#, and hardly take up much space.
Pointer types are what, & and * ? Fine if you’re coming from c, c++ and don’t take up much space.
.async is the weirdest for sure, but again hardly strange or disgusting.
What about any of this is worse than if I smashed my face into my keyboard but hit only the $*%#•¥$><~.,!=&@£.?!’ characters, aka writing Perl? Or anything as totally alien as Haskell?
Most Rust I read or write, if I squint, looks like Python with a few extra braces and semicolons.
I was thinking of things like Box, Rc, Arc, Cell, Refcell. Then there is also the macro language, which integrates Scheme concepts. Like C++, it is a huge language, with extra wrinkles for every new corner case. Again, maybe this all is unavoidable if one wants to have zero cost abstractions. Hopefully, language designers will learn from Rust and come up with something more elegant.
Out of those, Box is the only one that is, and the way that it is is not syntax: it has one exception, and that’s that you can move the contents out of it via a dereference. That’s making existing syntax semantically valid, not introducing new syntax.
In terms of syntax, you create a box with Box::new just like you might any other struct.
EDIT: anyway I'm not saying that means that your underlying issue isn't real, just that I think describing it as "syntax" makes the issue confusing to understand. It sounds to me like maybe you think Rust programs are too verbose?
Sure, "let foo = bar" is one of the worst things any language can do.
Let is redundant, that's what the = is for. Unless it's meant to be equivalent to 'var' or 'auto', in which case it's even worse.
Let contains no information, it's pointless clutter that replaced something that did contain vital information. Let tells you the next symbol is a variable. What type? Who knows and who cares, it's a variable, deal with it. C marks a symbol as a variable by using its type name.
I mean, this was a very large part of why Perl is so miserable. I will never understand why people choose to implement this in modern languages.
Anyway, variables and parameters without explicit, visible type information is a hard no for me. I took a sniff of a couple rust projects, saw this mess, and decided that rust is not for me. I don't care about all the other magical benefits that cure all my ails, this feature is a dealbreaker, full stop.
`let` defines a new binding, as opposed to changing the value of an existing binding. You can't remove `let` to keep only `=` because it has a different use case.
Not indicating the type is idiomatic in Rust, but you can annotate it:
let commit_message: String = repo.head().peel_to_commit().ok()?.message()?.into();
Here this is useful to specify the type `into` should convert to. However, if rewritten as:
let commit_message = repo.head().peel_to_commit().ok()?.message()?.to_string();
Then it is useless because we're already specifying the type of the variable by using `to_string`.
Note that IDEs are displaying type hints anyway (without you having to type them), so you don't have to suffer if walking through a codebase where people are annotating their types too little for comfort
This seems like a meaningless trivialization, because you completely remove the meaning and purpose of the thing. All the code you write gets converted into machine code. Why not write machine code then? If you write it long enough it'll seem normal.
>Bluetooth file transfer is not accessible enough for non-technical people?
It's incredibly difficult. Do you have any idea how "non-technical" these "non-technical" people are? I know people that use phone every day to make calls as send messages, take photos, browse Facebook, read emails and they could not send an email with a file attachment to save their life. Asking that kind of person to:
1. Enable Bluetooth and make device discoverable
2. Enable Bluetooth on another device.
3. Pair the devices.
4. Find an option to send the file
5. Accept the file in another device.
6. Wait for the file transfer to finish.
7 (bonus). File transfer failed for some reason and you have to start again.
We did it all the time before smartphones, 'bluetoothing' ringtones or images (especially if lucky enough to have a 'cameraphone') to each other.
I suppose it depends what you mean by 'non-technical', maybe our parents couldn't have and we were 'tech-savvy' in the way that children are, but this was normal, what everyone did, and of course many in 'non-technical' work now, didn't study CS, etc.
You elongated this by assuming Bluetooth is disabled on both devices, which is not the default state on any OS I am aware of. The actual step list looks like this:
1. Enable Bluetooth discoverability on the target device.
2. Share file over Bluetooth on source device.
3. Accept the file transfer on target device.
You don't need to add extra steps for things like "wait", that's the same for any kind of I/O operation such as "copying a file". It's also extremely silly to add something like "Find an option to send the file". On most operating systems, it's just not that hard. On Android it's in the normal "Share" popup. So this amazingly difficult and highly technical step is to press "Share" on a file and select Bluetooth.
I could also make turning on a computer sound like a tedious seven step process if I wanted to be an asshole.
>which is not the default state on any OS
Irrelevant. It could be intentionally or accidentally disabled by the user.
I don't know why you are so annoyed, but I know for a fact that average non-technical person is incapable of sharing files over Bluetooth on their own, and this probability of incapacity increases with age.
I'm annoyed because it doesn't really matter, misrepresenting the situation by adding steps that aren't really there doesn't strengthen the case, it makes it sillier. I would guess it's more likely that people don't know to use Bluetooth for sharing, more than they simply couldn't figure it out. And to be fair, why would they?
There are a lot of things where simply knowing to do them is a large part of the problem, rather than a literal inability.
Yeah, memento mori. Not entirely related, but I was diagnosed with a complete AV block over a year ago, but refused pacemaker implantation. Just reminds me that if even semingly healthy people can die like this, then I have no hope for the future, not at all.
Because I think that it's not a life worth living, because living like this would feel fake, artificial. I don't want it to depend entirely on some device with battery. Moreover, it brings problems and potential risks on its own and is unlikely to extend lifespan significantly.
The only piece that makes sense about what you said is that it is unlikely to extend lifespan. Do you consider all life-saving medical interventions to be "living a fake life"?
I experienced a very bad compound fracture of my wrist, and I have metal plates and a bunch screws permanently implanted into my left radius and ulna. I don't consider the use of my left hand to be fake or artificial, but by your rationale I'm fooling myself.
What I meant is "being kept alive by artificial means". You can live without having a functioning hand - you can't without a functioning heart. But, to some extent yes, if it's something your body cannot recover (well enough) from, and you have to resort to external interventions by planting some kind of artificial material into you body, it's faking your body's capabilities. May be life saving or improve quality of live significantly for sure, but it's an illusion, it's not you in your biological entirety. I am not smart or eloquent enough to describe it in detail, but that's the gist of it.
Is the use of eyeglasses or hearing aids "fake" too? Or do you have some kind of fear of contamination, being "less-than-human"? Your views seem quite abnormal.
>Is the use of eyeglasses or hearing aids "fake" too?
Yes.
>Or do you have some kind of fear of contamination, being "less-than-human"?
No. In fact, I have nothing against external life enhancing tools of any kind, be it glasses, hearing aids or anything else. I do not look down on anyone for having any kind of artificial devices, either invasive or non invasive. Just for me personally, the idea of having artificial devices as a permanent part of biological flesh feels awful. I like technology, but at hand's reach.
I have a defibrillator implant and run half marathons and 5ks. I view it as a challenge to get past that limitation.
I respect your view, but maybe it’s not as limiting as you think it is. The pacemaker doesn’t define you, it just gives you the backup you need so you can do whatever you want to do.
The fact that you're on this website typing with a computer means that your life has been materially altered by the development of computers, thanks to all of the hours of the humans that came before us, working learning and building, to bring technology, and you are using that technology to explain that you don't want to use that technology to prolong your life.
I've spent a quarter of my life building tools and environments to help advance spaceflight - I hope to hell that everyone in the future who has the potential to be helped by my work takes advantage of it, otherwise what was it for?
My dog required a pacemaker due to a total block at a young age. It cost us basically nothing because she was insured. Would you have considered her any less of a dog? If your pet required a pacemaker would you love them any less? Would you refuse them the procedure?
I don't consider anyone "less" for having any kind of medical intervention. If it required a pacemaker, I would agree without a second though, absolutely.
Not everyone is the same, nor are the lives they lead, the lifestyles they lead (exercise/diet). In a population of our size there is likely going to be seemingly health people who unfortunately pass away, but that shouldn't stop people from being able to attempt to repair their health problems and ultimately live longer.
reply