That's only true if the engineers are not allowed to copy/steal from existing designs. There are plenty that are better than GIMP (e.g. Photoshop, Krita, ...). If nothing else, make it easy to build a layer on top so that Photoshop can be replicated nearly exactly.
They didn't say "reality must be wrong". They said that their initial hypothesis (that significant changes would be observed after 21 days) is probably wrong, so they implicitly proposed a second hypothesis (that significant changes occur after e.g. a few months).
None of this is remotely contemptible.
Pretend you're an immortal alien conducting a study with the hypothesis, "humans are mortal". You observe that your subjects do not die after 21 days. Do you conclude that humans are immortal? (I hope not. It's much better to conclude that humans don't usually die after 21 days in this particular instance of extraterrestrial captivity.)
A few years ago, the main advantage was merely that "Sidebery is far less buggy and much more performant than Tree Style Tab".
Nowadays, the gap has... widened. The little details matter, but there's big feature differences too: panels, saving/restore to JSON, better appearance, tons of options for tweaking (but with sane defaults), ...
Personally, I would prefer the conventional Latin Modern math font instead of Palatino math.
Latin Modern is used by:
- Wikipedia.
- Math.StackExchange.
- Nearly all papers, including the ones hosted on arxiv in PDF format.
- Nearly any math videos, slides/presentations, notes.
- Almost everything, really.
Palatino just looks weird.
Also, I imagine that authors might do math formatting hacks that were only tested on Latin Modern, and might end up breaking on Palatino.
It's also quite silly that society often credits one guy at the top who supposedly has "incredible vision" and yet would likely fail at explaining even the most basic technical details. And if such a person must be credited, why not the CTO, chief engineers, or principal scientists, who are at least closer to what actually drive the technical innovations than the CEO?
In reality, it's actually the 1000s of actual engineers that deserve most of the credit, and yet are never mentioned. Society never learns about the one engineer (or team) that solves a problem that others have been stuck on for some time. The aggregate contributions of such innovators are a far more significant driving force behind progress.
Why do we never hear of the many? It's probably because it's just easier to focus on a single personality who can be marketed as an "unconventional genius" or some such nonsense.
Actually, maybe I'm just a complete git, but I couldn't figure out how to `git reset HEAD~` my accidental commits, `git rebase -i HEAD~6`, format `jj log` more like `git log --color --oneline --graph --full-history` (which shows one-line-per-commit), `git checkout -p` (and obviously, `git add -p`), `git show HEAD~`, refer to N-th parents, e.g. `master~5`, and a bunch of other things...
It also feels a bit weird that new files are automatically committed without being manually approved, but I suppose this might theoretically help with some of git's annoyances.
Neat tricks. Beyond BufWriter (which I'm already using) and multthreading, I'm guessing there's not much to be done to improve my "frece" (a simple CLI frecency-indexed database) tool's performance without making it overly complicated. https://github.com/YodaEmbedding/frece/blob/master/src/main....
Nearly no one inhabits Greenland and Antarctica, which might help explain why the only visible relative increase in Arctic/Antarctic nationalism comes from enthusiastic polar bears and mildly racist penguins.
I'm not sure there could even exist a particularly satisfying source for this. One of the issues with "soft" sciences is that it can be quite tricky to measure any effects, much less design a viable study that demonstrates causation.
I suppose a social scientist (i.e., not me) could support this claim using ideas from psychology or finding related studies. But I doubt anything will ever be particularly convincing unless we lived in a universe where people told the objective truth and a mandatory survey was asked with the explicit question, "Have the distortions induced by map projections influenced your beliefs regarding people in other countries?"
The issue isn't possible bias on the part of educated cartographers and differential geometers. It's the bias of the majority, i.e. everyone else, that matters. A vast majority of people in the "Western world" perceive their countries as being bigger than they are. Thus from a primal, tribal perspective this further inflates their perception of "their peoples" being more important than the peoples of other areas.
I guess JIT type specialization / "monomorphization" might be one way to do it, but I expect that it would be bottlenecked by all the surrounding CPython interpreter stuff.