How to compile and run this? We need a build system! Download and install GNU Make.
When that step is complete:
Type in
make hello
and its done. Now, run via ./hello
See, Too much magic (didn't even have a makefile or Makefile), no standard library, Too constricting, cryptic, too basic. And, because you had to install Make, too complicated. Hits every one of your objections.
One snapshot would help because, if EVERYTHING collapses, and you need data recovery, the snapshot provides a basepoint for the recovery. This should allow better recovery of metadata. Not that this should EVER happen -- it is just a good idea. I use Jim Salter's syncoid/sanoid to make snapshots, age them out, and send data to another pool.
I agree that ECC is a damn good idea - I use it on my home server. But, my lappy (i5 thinkpad) doesn't have it.
Either the journalist writing the article was using Dutton as a source accurately, or Science is not a reputable source of news. This is mutually exclusive.
I took the story prima facie. And, if the story (journalism) is accurate, Dutton is indeed suffering from hubris. Someone brought up the collapse 100,000 year ago in a direct comparison. It was either Dutton or the journalist. If I take Science as an accurate source, it was Dutton. Or it was not Dutton, then Science is not reputable (are they adding implications and misquotes?). If that is the case, why the HN story? HN curated it (that is, HN readers) so I have to give credence to Science magazine (because I give credence "to the crowd of HN contributors"). Again, both sides cannot be argued at the same time.
As to reading the summary for policy makers: the IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one. Why would its publications that are for policy makers be of interest to me? I need a condensed version of science, not policy. The IPCC doesn't have anything to do with the claim -- (except CO2 causes global warming which the IPCC doesn't actually claim, but does imply, as best as I can tell). Either Dutton made the claim, or Science made the claim -- they have to back it up and defend it. I made no claim EXCEPT that Dutton is suffering from hubris. Which I just backed up and defended.
I do wish that was a reasonable argument. Closer: I drive a "Model Z". In the past, someone discovered a crushed Model Z. Does driving a Model Z more than 50 mph cause crushing?
"The new octopus genome data, she adds, “is pretty convincing evidence that a full collapse happened.”
The findings reinforce the importance of understanding how modern climate conditions are affecting the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Dutton says. “This is telling us that we need to take this bigger picture seriously.” Continued ocean warming—driven by greenhouse gas emissions—could destabilize the submerged portion of the ice sheet. To lower the chance of another collapse, she says, “We can’t just kick the can down the road and wait to make emissions cuts for another 5 years, another 10 years. It really demands that we do it now.”
Emissions in the modern sense were not the cause of this. But, it happened. Is Dutton making the claim that emissions are the cause now? I'll accept all of Dutton's claims, except that one; there is no basis for that claim. Lower the chance of another collapse? By how much? Would that have actually helped 100,000 years ago? I make the claim that Dutton is suffering from hubris.
thanks -- I was under the initial impression that you intended jeeves as a "pythonic make". make isn't a command runner at all. Indeed, it relies on sh for that. It determines the DAG required to bring components up to date wrt dependencies. For example, you may have a postscript file and a pdf. Edit the postscript and you want the pdf regenerated:
my.pdf: my.ps
<tab> command to convert my.pdf to my.ps
Make makes no attempt to generate scripts, or anything like that. In general, make uses file timestamps to determine that my.pdf is out of date with respect to my.ps Make does have default commands that it can use. For example, it knows that executable w can be generated from w.c If I have a directory that contains w.c I can:
make w
cc w.c -o w
Now, because w exists, and is newer than w.c doing make w again does nothing!
All prices in Canadian dollars. Each of these has a place in horology; meaning; or use for me. The Wilk is a custom piece; there will never be one that is the same. The Casio is for "geek cred". The Orit is for health monitoring. I normally wear two watches. Both the Seiko 5 and the Amphibia have cemented their place in watch history.
They make me happy... these watches are, in general, not looked down upon by "watch snobs".
This story (making an Apple watch into a mechanical) makes me smile... now I want one!
Note that the Seiko 5 SNGZ09K1 is now $281 (Canadian) from Amazon. But the Vostok is $148 now (again, from Amazon).
Sixel is defined for two purposes: the first is to allow display of bitmaps. the second is to allow the definition of characters glyphs (which xterm does NOT have -- due to graphics limitations). If the glyph definition could be done, your bandwidth requirement would be reduced. Back in the 80's we generated custom fonts for PostScript (the Apple laser printer PostScript would cache the glyphs). As needed, the printer would request glyps and these would be supplied by an external driver or box (we called this the "Robin Box" for fairly obscure reasons). This system provided pre-press proofing for many customers (which would include publishers like Ziff-Davis). Please note that the speed of the communication was 9600baud (1000 cps). The image of that printer was 300x300 dpi, with some printers doing 600x600. Sixel would have been good... we used ASCII.
I like sixel -- I use xterm which gives me the option. For everything? No. but if I need a graphic, it is easy enough to use. The alternative for most would be to simply generate PostScript, and run GhostScript to view the results (typically on another system). I have NEVER contemplated watching a video with sixel... I could do it, but the player would be a "labour of love" - I would use a common decoder to produce an uncompressed bitmap (scaling and colour reduction) then convert that into frames of sixel... Just to show StarWars on a 340. But, no urge.
The main issue is that sixel offers the feature. No real reason to NOT have it... and it exists.
Try pbmtoln03, ppmtosixel, imagemagick convert and lsix
sixel is not a protocol: just an encoding. Your idea conflates the two things.
The purpose of the Robin Box? The publishers typically had hundreds or thousands of typefaces. The PostScript Printer? 15 to 50. Since RAM in the printer was limited, this approach allowed the scanning of the target typeface, conversion to outline form and production of dynamic programs executing in the printer. That are discarded but results cached. (and note that
technology is within a period that, in this case, was bounded by RAM space, and typographic conventions -- all of which changed fairly rapidly).
That approach allowed hundreds of typefaces to be used on a single page! With "standard" PostScript; on a printer with only a megabyte or so of RAM available. Sixel is simply a similar tool. You really can't predict how something like would be used if it were generally available.
You could well be right (I am not American). I do recall discussing the GDR with some USA people... a "democratic republic". Was told, back then, that the term had been co-opted. But then, I don't know much about the John Birch Society.
The USSR did call itself democratic. In a sense, since it was central control for all. The USA did NOT call itself democratic -- the preferred term up to the '70s was "constitutional republic". To avoid the flattening that "democracy" was perceived to produce. The argument is that democracy ALWAYS leads to tyranny and collapse.
To quote "Both are anti-democratic". Which I don't understand. Is your claim that both systems (as practiced in the USSR and USA) led to extreme wealth concentration? Did the economy increase during this concentration? If so, do you still consider this "anti-democratic".
The provider of care gets paid "a reasonable amount". The care is provided. No bureaucratic nonsense. Sound ideal. Except... someone invents a novel care. They can choose to provide it "for a reasonable amount". But it can ONLY be provided by the entity paying "a reasonable amount". That entity has to make the call "novel care/old care". Old care is ALSO provided at a "reasonable amount" and has entrenched interests. There is no way that novel care wins. Without setting up an alternate system, or going OUTSIDE the system. Then, consumers of old care can see novel care and its benefits. They can then demand novel care. This happens within the American system, and the American system provides that "outsider status" to other systems (like the one we have in Canada). What does the Canadian system eventually go? Without sufficient external force, it is less expensive to provide MAID (medical assistance in dying) that actual healthcare. The current debate in Canada is whether mental illness is a sufficient trigger for MAID. Depressed? Best cure is death. And, yes, Canada has been mocked for that.
What about assigned goto? hollerith?equivalence? Please look at the following:
C THE CALLEE
SUBROUTINE X(I)
GO TO I
END
C THE CALLER
ASSIGN 10 TO J
CALL X(J)
C THIS IS NEVER REACHED
STOP
10 WRITE(3,100)
100 FORMAT(8H THIS IS)
END
Why would this work? Because recursive calls are not allowed, There should NOT be a stack. So allow rather arbitrary jumped around (setjmp/longjmp) is um... ok?!? And what happens if a normal integer is passed to that code? (and it is separately compiled). Yikes.
Judges do NOT legislate from the bench! That is incredibly anti-democratic, and a collapse of our system. Judges do NOT tell politicians that they cannot make abortion illegal. That right, and yes, it IS a right, is reserved to the electorate. Who gets their will expressed through politicians. Judges judge against the body of legislation (and common law). And, yes politicians LITERALLY have the ability to do anything that the electorate want. That includes Global War.
Let us take the word as published by the CBC (pick another source). The idea (tldr) is that "At this point, no mass grave has been discovered, but more than a thousand potential unmarked graves have already been located, with many more Indigenous Nations just beginning their investigations."
Like I said, offensive, and apologies are in order. I do not know the issue in Ireland. Since I am a first-generation immigrant to Canada, I have no stake in this. But "denialism"? Since when is a demand for proof a denial? Especially for something as sensitive as making the accusation that a Religion is Genocidal. I am not Catholic. I am not Muslim. Nor am I Jewish (no, I am NOT going to bring my own faith into this discussion). But I would not level that accusation against any believer.
"The concern for Pierre is that the term “unmarked grave” is now so closely associated with victims of Canada’s residential school system.
“To just assume that every unmarked grave inside a graveyard is already tied to a residential school, we’ve got to be a little bit more respectful of our people who are buried in our graveyards,” Pierre said.
The graveyard near Cranbrook originally dates back to Christian missionaries who settled in the area in the early 1800s, prior to the construction of the school. A church and a hospital were also built in the area.
It eventually became a graveyard for the community, which it remains to this day."
There is no suggestion of "foul play" here. Wooden markers will disintegrate. Mass grave? Burial yard? Yes, words do matter.
I will show how Make hits every one of your complaints:
(sarcasm on)
in file hello.c:
How to compile and run this? We need a build system! Download and install GNU Make.
When that step is complete:
Type in
make hello
and its done. Now, run via ./hello
See, Too much magic (didn't even have a makefile or Makefile), no standard library, Too constricting, cryptic, too basic. And, because you had to install Make, too complicated. Hits every one of your objections.
(sarcasm off)