I disagree. I prefer talks, most of the time, especially on stuff that isn't nitty gritty technical. Do I want someone explaining to me on stage how to install minikube and deploy a container? Hell no.
But take what Fowler did, namely talking about refactoring, organizing and structuring your code - the broad strokes stuff. I think it's a lot more enjoyable and effective to listen to a talk (esp in person) for that, than it is to read about it.
Humans are social creatures, and I do enjoy the human aspect of learning from another human. Teaching is performative. I don't get that from a text as much as from a talk.
Of course, everyone's different, and that's why it's good it doesn't have to be either or.
That's perverse. You shouldn't have to self-censor out of fear. The fact that Amazon (Doordash, Google, ...) can get away with just cancelling people's accounts willy nilly and they'd have no recourse is a gaping hole in regulations.
BTW, it's off-topic, but this right here is the among best arguments we can make for strong privacy, and against mass surveillance. If people are willing to swallow monetary damage out of fear to upset an algorithm that may cut back their privileges, imagine what happens to political free speech when you have to fear govt surveillance and black vans.
Why companies should not have right to cancel their relationship with person for non-discriminatory reasons? And constant complaints and errors on aggregate sounds entirely reasonable reason.
If same thing kept happening inside non-online business I think we would find it pretty okay...
If you keep buying mouldy food maybe there is need to change your habits... Or stop buying from that store in first place.
On other side, let's say customer violently attacks other customers or staff. Or causes substantial property damage intentionally, maybe attempts arson. Would you still disagree with them banning such customer?
It's a cost of doing business, not really a fear. I can't recall this happening to me, but if Amazon did make an error or damage a minor thing or whatever I wouldn't object because I would object if it were a major thing and I want to maintain a good record to make it more likely I automatically win any major objections in future. The cost of this strategy is accepting any minor loss from Amazon and the benefit is an increased likelihood of good service for major items.
The only error I can recall from Amazon is they once included an exacto knife I didn't order in a package to me.
There are crucial differences between Java applets and JS.
- Applets tried to render their own GUI, Wasm doesn't and defers to the browser.
- applets needed a big, slow to start and resource hungry VM. Wasm is running in the same thread your JS is also running in, it's light, and loads faster than JS
- Java and flash were plugins, which needed to be installed and kept up to date separately. Wasm is baked into your browser's JS engine
- Wasm code is very fast and can achieve near native execution speeds. It can make use of advanced optimisations. SIMD has shipped in Chrome, and will soon in Firefox
- The wasm spec is very, very good, and really quite small. This means that implementing it is comparatively cheap, and this should make it easy to see it implemented by different vendors.
- Java was just Java. Wasm can serve as a platform for any language. See my earlier point about the spec
So it's apples and oranges. The need to have something besides JS hasn't gone away, so their use cases might be similar. The two technologies couldn't be more distinct, though.
You must view the browser with JS and WASM as a unit.
The browser renders it's own GUI too, it's not OS native
The browser uses lots of resources too.
The browser is kind of a plugin to the OS and must be updated separately.
Java nowadays is pretty fast too.
Java VM serves a platform for multiple languages like Scala, Kotlin, Clojure.
Let's face it, the browser is the new JVM and a soon it gets the same permissions like the JVM to access the file system and such, we get the same problems.
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Subres... : "Subresource Integrity (SRI) is a security feature that enables browsers to verify that resources they fetch (for example, from a CDN) are delivered without unexpected manipulation. It works by allowing you to provide a cryptographic hash that a fetched resource must match."
> There's a new Native Filesystem API: "The new Native File System API allows web apps to read or save changes directly to files and folders on the user's device."https://web.dev/native-file-system/
> We'll need a way to grant specific URLs specific, limited amounts of storage.
> You must view the browser with JS and WASM as a unit
“Web” assembly is a bit of a misnomer. It’s an IR at the end of the day and can be run without a browser[1]. But your other points could be true one day if the de facto WASM runtime becomes bloated or decides to ship with some GUI renderer.
> a soon it gets the same permissions like the JVM to access the file system and such
Like... never?
We get better systems as we get more experience. That's why C# was better than Java, Java today is better than Java was when C# launched. That's why we now have amazing languages like Rust and also that's why the same problems will never be the same given we have a ton of experience with VMs, docker, sandboxing in browsers etc.
I disagree. As a software engineer, R is a nuisance, it's a terrible language, and I hate doing complicated things in it.
But it's very powerful, it's exactly right for these use cases and its ecosystem is mindbogglingly huge. Also, it tends to be easier to grasp for folks who don't have prior programming knowledge (anecdotal, but I've seen people pick it up very quickly who struggled a lot with, say, Python. And Python is the only language/ecosystem that comes close to R.)
So, yeah, a lot of languages could be used for the use cases in TFA, but R is uniquely suited, weaknesses notwithstanding.
But, to focus on the original article, Clinical Labs, where data analysis is literally the basis for life-and-death decisions, is not a sensible use case.
On my 6 year old mobile phone, I can do the same thing in Signal. Takes seconds to find arbitrary strings in years long very active conversations.
Honestly, I've no idea how we can accept bad performance in Teams and Slack. I can grep hundreds of megabytes of text in seconds on a raspberry pi. You have to actively try to make your software shitty to not be able to do that on a modern desktop.
I am with you but I don't think anybody deliberately makes software shitty per se. It's more like "not my damned problem" and everybody picks a framework or a library for basic stuff and piles them on top of one another.
Adobe did not birth Flash, they bought it, through Macromedia.
Also, Flash gets a lot of flak, but it saved us from applets and ActiveX. It also enabled multi media content on a web that was not yet as standardised and functional as today's.
Acrobat reader on the other hand, is pure cancer, and has seen many security holes. PDF is useful, but there are far better PDF readers.
And Flash enabled such a rich multimedia experience on the web in a time when broadband wasn't to be assumed. I remember playing very in-depth games on Newgrounds back in the day via Flash, via a very slow 56k dialup connection. There's no way to replicate that experience these days (easily anyway). The tooling around Flash was all very impressive. Sure the web changed and people turned on Flash, but that doesn't mean it didn't fill a very important niche for a long time.
And of course After Effects is not originally from Adobe either, being bought through Aldus who in turn got it from CoSA. It's funny how much pointless early 90s computer trivia I still recall from playing with promotional CD-ROMs as a child.
I hear this sentiment a lot, and its proponents usually don't spend any thought on disproving other views. Such as, maybe it's better to have everyone motivated well, instead of having a few people excessively motivated while the rest trudges along.
Maybe it depends on the field? Do you need superstars or are you only as fast as you slowest team mate?
And maybe, but I barely dare say it out loud here, maybe compensation has less to do with performance and more to do with who eats dinner/cracks a beer with whom. In this case, how would the motivation argument even hold?
I don't know which one is true. I wouldn't try to sound too convinced of any one of these unless I knew the situation of the business very well.
However this is not about how many vaccines have been bought, but how many are being delivered via current production. The US, EU, UK, etc have indeed bought more than they needed, but they won't (by definition) be using more than they needed - the extra purchases were due to spreading the production and vaccine approval risk to ensure that enough were available.
You could reasonably argue they shouldn't be vaccinating whole populations, by which I mean including low-risk elements, whilst poorer countries cannot vaccinate even high-risk ones. That's a different question though.
The BBC is publicly funded. The entire idea behind publicly funded news and broadcast is that they shouldn't care about eyeballs, singe they don't need and money.
The BBC is staffed by humans. Humans who want their programming to be popular and watched widely. If people stopped watching BBC news, you better believe they'd make changes to reverse that, whatever it takes. Their incentives are just different.
If no one was watching or reading I can't imagine they wouldn't start facing political pushback as a waste of money. Every entities existence is strengthened by usefulness, profit seeking or otherwise.
But take what Fowler did, namely talking about refactoring, organizing and structuring your code - the broad strokes stuff. I think it's a lot more enjoyable and effective to listen to a talk (esp in person) for that, than it is to read about it.
Humans are social creatures, and I do enjoy the human aspect of learning from another human. Teaching is performative. I don't get that from a text as much as from a talk.
Of course, everyone's different, and that's why it's good it doesn't have to be either or.