I don't really see the cycle. I just see it as languages getting closer and closer to Lisp, as per usual. Turns out the static languages had a lot more growing up to do than the dynamic languages, so you're seeing 'big' changes like Java 7 through 9, C++0x through C++1y, new languages like Go, Rust, Nim, Scala... Meanwhile the only recent dynamic languages worth talking about are Clojure, and maybe Julia and Elixir. Across the field of dynamic languages though you see a little more movement to optional typing (and more powerful typing semantics like schema or protocol conformance or other things you can do with dependent types) and maybe some concurrency or JIT or AOT trinkets from other implementations that all boil down to performance improvements of some sort. The language design on the dynamic end has changed much less because they have less to change.
You can train yourself to speed read (and shut down the subvocalization that gets in the way, at least temporarily) so I don't think it's totally dependent on not having an inner voice at all, though that might help. It's interesting. (To train: use a metronome and your finger. Scan each line with your finger on each beat, have your eyes follow your finger and try to understand what you're reading by sight. Eventually you'll get to a BPM faster than even your auctioneer speed so your subvocalization just won't be able to keep up with your finger, and so to understand you'll force yourself to stop subvocalizing. Increment the metronome. Occasionally do stretch goals where you increment by a large amount at the cost of comprehension, then go back down to a speed still above where you originally started, and that becomes your new base. Eventually you can wean yourself off both but you may still need one or both every now and again to power through something at full speed and full concentration. At some point you may start processing multiple lines at once.)
I subvocalize when I read. I'm capable of recognizing written words without subvocalizing, but they don't have any meaning. There are two cases when I'm reading, though.
- For pleasure, when the goal is to enjoy the book, rather than to get through it quickly
- For information/knowledge, where it's useful to really slow down and think about what I'm reading. Even when I'm "subvocalizing" (an inaccurate term because it generally implies mouthing the words without making sound), I can read faster than I can understand, if the information is novel.
Yeah, I figured I could eventually teach myself; it's never been something I cared about enough. Even at my fastest, my recollection and enjoyment suffered. If it was fiction, appreciating the author's prose and word choice and flow was more important, and seemed best enjoyed by vocalizing it, and if it was non-fiction, then capping my speed helped me understand and consider and generally grok the concepts.
At my somewhat-below-fastest (which is still faster than my current normal, as I'm a lazy reader these days) my concentration, recollection, and enjoyment was the best -- plus I finished everything way faster. For anything serious (and I mean you seriously want to enjoy something or seriously want to grok something) you will have to slow down. But that doesn't mean you can't go faster than your current fastest and still get those other things out of reading that you want. It's all in the training. Don't train with William Faulkner.
Animated gifs with audio. That's it. Also super easy to create from a camera phone, no video or gif editing skills needed.
I know at least some content producers on youtube will be happy. A lot of vine hate comes from them when random anonymous vine user uploads a tiny portion of their long video and gets tons of views and maybe some ad revenue (or at least takes away potential ad revenue from the youtuber). It's resulted in youtubers creating short clips by themselves on their channel or sister channels, but I can see the annoyance, if not fully understand the complaint since it's no different from the timeless complaint about media being easier and cheaper to distribute and consume than to create.
Most of those 16 million lines are in drivers though, not the core kernel. (Which if I recall correctly is only about 200k lines. A far cry from 10k, but also a far cry from 16m.)
I'll add basically anything they can call in any way. That is (a) directly because it's currently in kernel, (b) loaded through some command they shouldn't be able to access, or even (c) some abnormal mode of operation they cause that has more kernel code running than usual. I'll supplant (c) with running obscure, kernel functions that get less attention in security review than the main ones. Quite a few, major vulnerabilities come from those parts people forget about or only used in weird contexts.
I played through the two Galaxy games, the second one I think twice since you get Luigi after the first run... Maybe 8 months ago I was playing through Resident Evil 4 on the Wii to keep myself from buying the PC version, and when I finished I booted up SMG2 again to show a friend, and I was struck by how terrible it has aged... If I do play it again it'll be on the Dolphin Emulator. (4k 60hz SMG2 actually looks really nice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO8H5F1tCjg)
On the other hand I have hundreds of games on Steam I need to play but sometimes when I just want some random fun for a while I'll dig out some old SNES games (or launch an emulator). No one denies you can make incredible games on weak hardware, but you can't make certain types of incredible games without powerful hardware. And in any case you can always make some really crappy games.
I can't even seriously take the "but Nintendo does good gameplay and design even if their hardware sucks" rationalization anymore. With the possible exception of Splatoon (haven't played it), the other Wii U titles I have played at a friend's (I don't own the console) have, despite raising my expectations, systematically disappointed me in some major way due precisely to the gameplay, not the graphics: Super Mario 3D World, Star Fox Zero (that one hurt the most), Pikmin 3 (actually not so bad but no replay value), Super Smash Bros, Mario Kart, and maybe a couple others I'm forgetting. The next Zelda game is their last chance for me and every gameplay demo I've seen has set my expectations real low.
In short, the level design. I felt the hints of what annoyed me when I was playing the two Galaxy games, and this video really summed up what I find terribly wrong (as opposed to brilliant) with the design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBmIkEvEBtA It's lazy design. There are other complaints (even other specific issues with the level design I experienced) but that's the big one, it's so bad I don't want to play it ever again, let alone finish it.
I was thinking before the blog post confirmed the Tegra (and I had already known of the Tegra rumors from months ago) that by March 2017 it ought to be possible to stick one and maybe two GTX 1080s in that form factor... There's already a laptop that crammed two of them inside. That would make for a killer powerhouse. Of course it's modern Nintendo, they don't care about technical capability...
It's hard to buy third party titles when the only third party titles are games that came out years ago and that you already own on other platforms... It's also hard to buy first party titles when there are so few, and so few new IP at that (Splatoon, what else?). (I went into a Gamestop for the first time in a while a few weeks ago, was kind of surprised at how limited the Wii U selection still is at the end of its life.) What Nintendo needs is a set of "second party" devs like they had in the N64 era. But that's expensive.
They're not always required, but they try to bridge what you already know (or are supposed to know) with what is to come and move at a slower pace. It's also sometimes like an extra option for the less mathematically inclined who are still required to take such a number of math courses. On the other hand the only 'pre-' course I ever took (I tested out of pre-algebra somehow) was 'pre-calculus with honors'. I don't remember it much but I think it was mostly reviewing the harder topics from intermediate algebra aka 'algebra 2', which included trig (no separate trig course in my system), introduction to limits, and toward the end differentiation and maybe discrete summation. The 'honors' variant was also geared toward students who were planning on taking the more comprehensive 'AP Calculus BC' variant rather than the 'AB' variant.
Yes. In Alberta, all you care about is the rate of change of the the price of oil and computing the volume of manure, so only the basics about derivatives and integrals are needed. In British Columbia, you have to worry about how to fit your oddly-shaped modern furniture into your tiny Vancouver apartment and find the region of convergence for your mortgage, so more advanced techniques are necessary.
Hadn't thought of it like that before. :) A bit more usefully than the "one is harder one is easier" distinction, you can kind of think of the letters corresponding to semesters in a college course. A would be an introductory level (and possibly the only exposure a student might get if they're not interested in math but have to take a course), B would be a semester of Calculus 1, and C would be a semester of Calculus 2. Since high school the class goes year round you're still at a slightly slower pace than college, but if you do well on the AP BC test at the end many colleges will waive Calc 1 and Calc 2 from your requirements, whereas the AB test would only let you waive Calc 1. (A few other AP tests have different letter levels -- for physics only the C level seems to count and that's just basic Newtonian physics with very little calculus, though there is an optional E&M portion I never got to that may approach the Maxwell equations by the end... For computer science they used to have an A and an "AB", but they've dropped the "AB" since I took it. The "AB" basically got into actual algorithms and data structures, the A portion was basic programming and OOP heavy. All in Java.)
So I went to school in a country that is notorious for forcing kids to specialize early - the UK. In my age cohort, at age sixteen we had to pick just three subjects to study for the next two years. I chose 'pure and applied mathematics' as one of those three subjects. Some people chose 'pure mathematics' and 'applied mathematics' as Two of their subjects. I guess, vaguely, that doing the expanded applied maths would have included more calculus (not sure what that might have entailed - more second order differential equation stuff maybe?) - but there was definitely no point where I was faced with the choice of 'should I do a bit of calculus, or a lot of calculus?'. 16 year olds are not good at knowing how much calculus they need to learn. I was pretty happy just choosing 'do I want to learn some mathematics, no mathematics, or a lot of mathematics?' - and leaving it up to the school to figure out how much calculus to include. Based on my career since, the amount of calculus included was, it turns out, 'enough'.
Worth noting that the Scottish education system is different - people do 5 or 6 highers at 16/17 and those are used for university entrance rather than 3 A-levels at 17/18.
Scottish first degrees are 4 years rather than 3 in England - presumably to allow for this.
