I agree WASM doesn't bring in anything fundamental to this picture that isn't already there with JS. But that is no comfort.
In the ancient web world, the site author wrote HTML to describe the data she wanted presented and the browser took care of making it accessible. But authors (especially companies) wanted detailed control of how their sites looked, so they turned to flash etc.
JS has long been re-playing this trend in slow motion -- moving away from web pages being interactive documents presented by the GUI app called browser and towards them being stand-alone GUIs like in flash.
I think they are doing this with temporary loans. Our Maritime Museum in Sydney had a very good exhibition about the destruction of Pompeii. All the stuff there was on loan from some a couple maritime museums in Italy.
> While legacy code is most troublesome, it still will be at maximum only twice as bad resource-wise, than new and pretty code.
This reflects an assumption -- perhaps one nurtured by engineers -- that paying down technical debt is about writing new shiny code.
But in my experience, new code is where most technical debt accrues. True technical debt reduction usually involves improving the behaviour of old code. It might also involve cleaning up that code; but mostly it's about cleaning up the workings of the running system.
> _immediately move money to a bank account or you are dead_
So the "bank account" you are refering to is (or is a practically automatic gateway too) one of those "more stable financial assets" you mention above.
The fact that the banks can be trusted to do that is a sign of some kind of orderliness. I wonder if such an option exists in Venezuela right now.
> but the people speaking the different dialects don't want to change to the new version. Makes sense that these small Alpine valley cultures want to speak the language their ancestors have evolved over the millennia, not some newfangled mashup.
Well heck, the same thing can almost be said of German.
Be reasonable! Just as even interpreted software must eventually appeal to hardware actions to give them meaning, laws must eventually appeal to human-judged concepts, including reasonabless.
A definition like the one above actually strikes a good balance. It leaves it up to courts faced with real situations to evolve rules about what constitutes "reasonable"; while giving those courts a definite thing to judge the reasonableness of.
I am no plasma physicist, but the concern I hear about fusion is that whenever we scale a system up we find the plasma is behaving in new ways, resulting in new loss mechanisms.
Identifying and understanding those new behaviours sounds more like science than engineering to me. (That said, scientists frequently do engineering and engineers frequently do science; I've been on both sides of it).
I expect so. But there is still an interesting point: witch and heretic-burning likely tap into much the same psychology as ancient human sacrifice. Even the rationales overlap:
"Devine will demands these deaths; we will ensure the safety of our community by ritually killing these people."
Yes. The Romans they accepted as inevitable that vast numbers of infants would be killed all the time. The Carthagians would have also had to deal with this reality. Perhaps they did so by framing it as a sacrifice to Moloch -- a practice which the Romans found nearly as abhorrent as we do.
But then, given that the killings were happening anyway, the existence of an infant necropolis does not prove that sacrificing was going on.
The Jews weren't merely fellow Semitic speakers, they were neigubours to the Phoenecians. And rivals.
In fact this is a point in favour of the Jews, in that even if such practices were not common among them; they would still have a strong reason to bother condemning them because there hated neighbours did it.
One of the very few things I know about audio codecs is that they at least implicitly embody a "psychoaccoustic model". The "psycho" is crucial because the human mind is the standard that tells us what we can afford to throw away.
So a codec that agressively throws away data but still gets good results must somehow enbody sophisticated facts about what human minds really care about. Hence "artifacts that are natural".
Of course I suppose if a fish did the same thing we might have a foundering flounder.