If Google cured cancer tomorrow, there's someone that would be complaining about it and adding "cancer" to the "killed by Google" list. I would be very surprised if smaller browser vendors were happy about having to maintain ancient XSLT code, and I doubt new vendors were planning on ever adding support. Good riddance.
The post specifically calls out Apple and Mozilla as wanting to get rid of XSLT support, but just insinuates that this is because Google is paying them off. Obviously I think Google's monopoly position and backroom dealings are bad, but I also think that's completely unrelated, and that the more likely explanation for the other mainstream vendors wanting to get rid of XSLT is that it's a feature virtually no one uses and is likely a maintenance burden for the other non-Chromium browsers.
> Smaller browser vendors already pick and choose the features they support.
If there weren't a gazillion features to support, maybe there would be more browsers. I think criticizing Google and other vendors for _adding_ tons of bloat would be a better use of time.
> There’s a much smaller network of people with relationships to Eastern European or other companies.
Unlike eastern Europe, India is geopolitically in a pretty good spot right now, having decent relations with most developed countries, and not engaged in any major wars with its neighbors. The last company I worked for outsourced a lot of work to Russia. At a certain time in 2022 they suddenly had to shift a lot of that work to... India!
Absolutely. They are in the middle both physically and logically. Notice Trump’s big crackdown barely made a dent - mess with India, and Jamie Dimon and his peers are on the phone immediately… finance depends on the outsourcers onshore and offshore to function.
India’s long term positioning of neutrality and strategy with business, education and politics is bearing fruit.
Technically true but I've found it to be less addictive than other text forums (like the R-site and Lemmy), let alone the algo-powered video-based abominations that normies are all hooked on.
I'm thinking that it comes down to one thing in particular: the absence of response notifications. There's only so much addiction you can get out of a page of text without so much as a bell icon.
I know what you mean, but I think the issue is not social media, but rather big corporations being shitty. PepsiCo makes addictive beverages that cause people develop to diabetes and heart disease, but that doesn't mean beverages should be illegal. I think it would be better to regulate or ban the specifically harmful things, rather than a blanket ban on something that is actually useful. And like you alluded to, banning social media could easily lead to a general crackdown on freedom of expression, journalism, etc, now that it is the primary way people communicate with one another.
I'll also add that I'm not specifically opposed to banning minors from using social media. It would probably also be better if it was illegal for children to buy their own soda tbh.
How funny, having grown up in a rural area, I'd never live one again due to the madness, filth, and ugliness! I hope we both have ample choices for the ways we choose to live.
Noise in cities is mostly from cars, as is the dirt and death and destruction. Which is why I advocate so hard for allowing low car lifestyles and building, something that is largely banned in the US.
> How funny, having grown up in a rural area, I'd never live one again due to the madness, filth, and ugliness!
The only reason there would be madness, filth and ugliness in a rural area is if you left it there, because you are the only one living on your property.
Obviously, you have to sometimes go out into a hub of activity to get groceries or whatnot, but the onus is on you to provide evidence that those hubs are epicenters of madness and filth in a rural area, but not the urban area.
The only reason there would be madness, filth and ugliness in a rural area is if you left it there, because you are the only one living on your property.
My childhood friend's grandfather owned a silage plant. Ever smelled silage?
The local pig farm has created the worst smell I've ever directly experienced, and it's been a problem since the 90s.
These are just a few examples of filth and ugliness. As for madness, meth use and inattentive, drunk, or road-raging pickup truck drives with provide you that.
I see that you have the full experience. Has a person really lived until they have experienced the smell of a pig barn a mile away being cleaned out? Maybe "lived" is the wrong word but damn will it give you new nasal experiences that are beyond description. Around me, it was mostly the turkey barns, but I drove by enough pig barns that I know it's equally horrifying.
There's too much "trad life" larping on Instagram these days, and one of the many many parts of the experience that viewers miss is smell.
My experience from childhood in a quite rural area (500m from a large nature preservation area) is the same.
There was noise from constant tractors running around (for both cereal agriculture and cattle farming), even more noise from the nearby gigantic steel building company. People constantly driving around for any reason with stinky noisy vehicles (often poorly maintained). You would get bad smells from the cattle farmer muckspreading or the porc farmer cleaning out. Sometimes you would actually need to stay inside because the nearby cereal farmer thought it was a good idea to spray pesticide with a helicopter.
And that's before even talking about the "nature" part, like a swan chasing you because for some reason he thought you were a threat when you were just passing by, a random confused board wondering if he should charge you or just go about his life, gigantic carnivore fish that will bite you if you are not careful (silurid fish, they caught one over 2m in the river next to my house). You can add the random stray dog (or just common farmer dog) that may not be that friendly and agressive bulls that may catch you by surprise if you unknowingly walked on their territory (to take a shortcut or whatever).
I have learned the hard way that nature is a bitch and rather nasty most of the time. We built society/civilisation because otherwise we wouldn't fare very well alone or in small groups.
And the parts of nature we exploit for civilisation are not better than cities, in fact they are often much nastier (you get the nature default, plus the crap humans put on top).
I think people who have some sort of fetish for nature are low IQ or weird excitement with unnecessary risks. My experience living with/around the people there taught me that indeed, most of them are quite dumb and that's probably the reason they are here.
You seem to be confusing living in the country with living "right in the middle of animal farming and agriculture farms".
There are plenty of small developments (e.g. 100-150 houses with 2-3 acre plots with some basic amenities like road clearing) that are far away from anything you describe.
> because you are the only one living on your property.
This makes me think you don't actually live in a rural area. It's not like you're pioneering, no connection to the rest of society. There's still school for the kids, church, stores, and yes, even neighbors.
Plus, most humans find having a social life to be one of the greatest joys in life.
I find it fascinating that you think it's acceptable to call cities centers of madness, filth, and ugliness, but think it's completely unacceptable to think that of rural areas. Have you actually lived in a city? Or are you just basing it off of perceptions you get from media?
Many people have romantic notions about the country. Reality is there are “good” areas and bad. Lots of helplessness and poverty, shitty agricultural and industrial operators destroying the environment.
The beautiful areas are breathtaking if you can afford to live there.
I experienced both. I grew up in a beautiful pastoral landscape with prosperous dairy operations and a mix of tourism and small business. Small scale dairy farming is dead, and that death caused a chain reaction. My old home is a rural ghetto at this point. Distribution centers are the big thing that was supposed to save the day, but they have high turnover and generate truck traffic and other issues.
Sure, that's your personal preference and to each their own. The market speaks otherwise. Detached homes are the most desirable section of the real estate market based on consumer surveys, see the greatest growth in value compared to other real estate over the medium to long term and are basically recession proof. Even in the financial crisis of 2008-2009, the average loss was 10-15% in market value, which was recouped over the next five years.
The only consumer survey they actually reveals preferences is the price that people are willing to pay. Ask them questions in isolation and you miss all the implicit tradeoffs inherent to the questions.
And on that front, prices in dense areas are way way above suburban areas. Even if you subtract the lawn. People will pay far far more per sqft for a home in a dense urban area without a lawn! Which indicates that dense living is far undersupplied.
Not coincidentally, we don't have to ban suburban living, we only ban dense living. Literally anybody could buy an apartment building, tear it down and build a single family home, but how often do you ever see that happen? But you can't go the other direction, by law.
The market shows we do not have enough housing first and foremost. Many people care most of all about the cost, which is why people live in terrible buildings, so denser housing which can lower housing costs is the only real solution to increasingly unaffordable housing. Real estate is recession proof because we have effectively banned new housing which creates a massive rent seeking wealth transfer to those holding onto land simply by being there first
Single family homes have more sqft, so of course there is a higher price ceiling! That’s…very intuitive. There’s also less of them, because they take up so much space, so…doesn’t surprise me that they would be more at a “premium”. Assuming it’s in a desirable location.
One more thing to consider - no U.S. city has “excellent” infrastructure so it’s difficult to know what the demand would be like if that kind of city existed in the US. NYC doesn’t count, the subway is good by US standards but it’s junk compared to asia standards. Slow, loud, disgusting, lots of delays and maintenance on weekends.
For example how much would a nice apartment in manhattan be worth if i could easily hop on a bullet train and be in the Hamptons on Long Island within 50 minutes? Or in Mystic Connecticut within 45 minutes?? Suddenly commuting from the suburbs daily, so i can relax in nature on the weekends loses its appeal. Just one example.
With that said it’s good the market offers different housing “products” based on personal preference or life-stage (young, kids, older, etc)
Loading time is pretty rough, but it seems responsive enough after the initial load. Probably as fast or faster than downloading and installing GHC locally.
What problem does that solve with GC, specifically? It also seems like that creates an obvious new problem: If you have multiple heaps, how do you deal with an object in heap A pointing to an object in heap B? What about cyclic dependencies between the two?
If you ban doing that, then you’re basically back to manual memory management.
Maybe try a different ML-influenced language like OCaml or Scala. The main innovation of Rust is bringing a nice ML-style type system to a more low level language.
I wouldn't recommend OCaml unless you plan to never support Windows. It finally does support it in OCaml 5 but it's still based around cygwin which totally sucks balls.
Also the OCaml community is miniscule compared to Rust. And the syntax is pretty bonkers in places, whereas Rust is mostly sane.
Compile time is pretty great though. And the IDE support is also pretty good.
There are other nice things about Rust over OCaml that are mainly just due to its popularity. There are libraries for everything, the ecosystem is polished, you can find answers to any question easily, etc. I don't think the same can be said for OCaml, or at least not to the same extent. It's still a fairly niche language compared to Rust.
I remember about 5 years ago, StackOverflow for OCaml was a nightmare. It was a mishmash of Core (from Jane Street) Batteries, and raw OCaml. New developers were confronted with the prospect of opening multiple libraries with the same functionality. (not the correct way of solving any problem)
Jane Street apparently has a version of OCaml extended with affine types. I'd like to test that, because that would (almost) be the best of all worlds.
I think you're referring to OxCaml. I'd love to see this make a huge splash. Right now one of the biggest shortcomings of OCaml, is one is still stuck implementing so much stuff from scratch. Languages like Rust, Go and Java have HUGE ecosystems. OCaml is just as old (even older than Rust since OCaml inspired Rust and its original compiler was written in OCaml) as these languages. Since it's not been as popular, it's hard to find well-supported libraries.
I too wish that some OxCaml features bring new blood to OCaml. I've been using OCaml for a few years for personal projects and I find the language really simple and powerful at the same time, but I had to implement me some foundational libraries (e.g. proper JSON, parser combinators), and now I'm considering porting one of those projects to Rust just so I can have unboxed types and better Windows support.
> even older than Rust
That's an understatement, (O)Caml is between 17 and 25 years older than Rust 0.1 depending on which Caml implementation you start counting from.
Just to offer another perspective: I think the way your website works right now is actually very nice and the person you’re replying to is wrong. When I go to godbolt.org, it similarly puts me on the screen where I actually want to be, as a person that wants to use that tool.
I think an “About” page or docs would greatly help people that want to know all of the features offered by the site, but I think the default of dropping you into the tool is ideal.
I assume this is because sqliteonline is using the sqlite library, not running the literal sqlite command line application. Per item 7 in the faq (https://sqlite.org/faq.html), the way to get that info would be to run something like the following:
SELECT * FROM sqlite_schema
WHERE type='table'
ORDER BY name;
The website does seem to correctly return the names/schemas of whatever tables you've created if you run the command above, but the editor (incorrectly) adds red squigglies around the command, since I guess it doesn't realize this is allowed.
