As a couple of others have mentioned, the original split between the original Java Edition and the now Bedrock Edition happened in 2011. This is several years prior to the 2014 acquisition of Mojang by Microsoft. So while Microsoft may have had motivations in Mojang promoting or expanding Bedrock adoption, that train had already left the station by the time Microsoft entered the picture.
I like Minecraft quite a lot and am not concerned with interoperability between Java and Bedrock... but will only play the Java Edition because of game-play differences between the two; differences in which Java Edition comes out as being materially better than Bedrock... at least from my perspective.
I guess this is one of those cases where, "if you know, you know."
I'm not sure of the link on the post though... I didn't see anything at all that jumped out as pertinent to this "Tangled" thing. I get that many posts on HN just aren't meant for me... but this seems to take that to an extreme.
Edit: yes I see the URL is Tangled... But that is a very subtle cue that I didn't notice until the third time I clicked through to see if the landing page really said nothing about Tangled.
I have a Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 monitor which basically does this. It basically has a simple KVM built into it. So my keyboard and mouse connect to the monitor, but then the monitor is connected to my desktop and a laptop. Using the monitor controls, I select which system I am using and get the display for that system as well as the keyboard/mouse activated for that system. There are different options for having them both on screen at once, but only one active for the controls, but I don't find that as useful as just having one system at a time being the sole focus.
Just as a casual test... I opened up Microsoft Word (online version). There's a button on the Review ribbon labelled "Spelling & Grammar", click that and the realtime, inline suggestions and squiggles are off no matter how many errors are present... click that button again and they're there.
So there are two modes... and have been for as long as I can remember (maybe since automatic spell check was there) and it is just a button press.
Now knowing that it's there... well... how many people review feature documentation these days, especially for something that is "feature rich", like Word?
I can't help you with any of those questions... but back in the 90s I use to be one of those employees that looked at the image on the screen and typed the address information in Salt Lake City.
Quantitatively, I don't know the stats, but qualitatively I can confirm it felt like a lot.
There were several editions. My copy (sitting on my bookshelf as I speak) was the '73 edition (though I think a later printing), but they did revise it including releasing it for the then prevalent home microcomputers.
I first learned programming converting these things to run on my VIC-20 (and later C64). That earliest effort was prior to those later editions... and I'm kinda glad... I had to learn what different things actually meant and judge what was important and not.
> What do electric cars and rockets have in common?
Electric motors? I imagine there are differences but the super heavy grid fins are electrically actuated (I have heard these motors were sourced from Tesla, though I don't have a great reference for that on hand). The thrust vectoring is also electrically actuated... again, I imagine there are differences of what's on the rocket and what's in the cars... but there are cross over areas of research and engineering.
Also, in a hand-wavy way, rovers share some traits with electric cars; again electric motors, wheels, steering, etc.
So while I don't believe a traditional car company is exactly trying to build space hardened/ready equipment in the normal course of business... it's not as far fetched as some combinations could be.
Unless you are seeing the population decline issues in China... then blame socialism and it's long time one child policy. A system predicated on the socialists in power having a sort of "paternalistic wisdom" that it can enforce on society regardless of the individual interests of any set potential parents in having a larger family than their socialist masters wish.
This is a pretty poor take. Sure the software that we call "PostgreSQL" started to be developed in the 80's... but they didn't stop there. PostgreSQL has been in continuous development, including improvements, changes, and additions, and by some very smart people at that. It's not static and as long as I've been a professional user of the database, decades, it has continually evolved and in some cases even led the way. If we were to survey the software, wouldn't you at least be interested to know how much of code base actually dates back to those long ago decades and how much is more modern before making such statement?
It would be a mistake to take what PostgreSQL actually offers: an excellent database that has be continuously developed and updated over many years (i.e. "maturity"), for some arbitrary idea and evidently baseless idea that somehow "new" must be better.
If new is better, say why; and do so with more actually true statements than it's not extensible. Want it in rust? Well, OK, sure you can give hand-wavy reasons about security and such for why that might be beneficial; but if you want to be convincing you need to be much more specific about the problem in PostgreSQL and the specific way in which your recommendation actually and convincingly moves the needle. If you can't do that, you're simply giving us an emotional outpouring rather than a rational one.
If you're going to try and use this analogy, you need to compare Elixir to Kotlin or Scala or Clojure rather than Java. Elixir is a language written for the BEAM which was created for Erlang. The BEAM happened to be useful VM for these other languages such as Elixir, Gleam, LFE, & Luerl.
I think that's part of it, but not necessarily the whole story. I haven't criticized them in the thread yet... so here goes.
Previously, I posted critically not because they were running businesses without humans, but because their post just described going through the motions without actually discussing if it really was effective or not. Sure the AI got through the day, checked off tasks on the list, but did it actually do that effectively or efficiently in any important way? Who knows... wasn't discussed.
I think where I come down now is that repeats of this same gimmick feel like just that: they're just playing a gimmick for attention. I can't tell that they're really demonstrating any special or significant capability... but man, just the story of trying to run a business without humans will get you that sweet, sweet attention.
Unfortunately, looking at least the first post, I stopped reading their "we let AI run X" posts. I think the only thing I really came away with is how thoughtless and mundane are most aspects of running a small business actually is; something I knew, but it really drove the point home. I didn't learn anything unexpected about AI tools or their products that seemed compelling or unexpected.
Easily one of the best values in commercial software if you have a need for what it does. I think I paid something ~$70 a couple of years ago. While there's a limitation on the number of updates you get based on release version, I'm still getting updates under the license a couple years on. All that and you get a genuinely professional level tool for much less than what similar software from competitors offer.