I do this too. And it's not just better communication, it's better life. This way I'm not dependent on other people to have fun. I'm not waiting on coordination in order to start doing the thing I want. I'm doing the thing I want, and letting others know that they can join.

I like it too though.

I'm not a full-blown hater, but I have problems with that as well. Specifically, you have no control about it whatsoever, you're just promised that "if you do things right, it'll be amazing". And it is! The problem is that any tiny minuscule mistake causes catastrophic failure of performance due to allocations. Since the good performance depends on type stability, and type stability propagates, any mistake anywhere will propagate everywhere. Think: if a variable becomes type unstable due to a programmer mistake, any function that consumes it generally might become type unstable as well, and any function that consumes the output of that function as well, etc. The upshot is that this forces you to think more carefully about your types and data structures. Programming in Julia extensively has made me a better programmer. I'm not a C++ expert, but I believe that in C++ these kind of mistakes always end up being localized.

Why specify compat in this manner? https://github.com/yolhan83/BloodFlowTrixi.jl/blob/03a78be28...

Normally you want to specify "up to which major version" or "up to which (major, minor) version" your lib is compatible with, while allowing that all minor or path respectively are automatically upgraded.

EDIT: To the person who said "Of all the languages, it often seems like Julia has the coolest libraries"

It's just a very good language for writing libraries. Which is a crazy thing to say, because you're think that being good for writing libraries is something that every language would want to get exactly right, but it appears not.

Yes, science has extremely unpredictable return on investment.

What's your suggestion? Don't try?

The reason that cars make stupid mistakes that a human never would, is that cars are trained to classify 2D images (and act accordingly). Humans on the other hand have a 3D model of the world that understands what is and isn't possible, and are trained to map 2D images to that 3D space.

The world is 3D so obviously the latter approach works way better.

I don't wanna experiment cooking, I want to have eaten.

Or is it that when the politics isn't US politics, HN readers can be more emotionally detached and treat it as "interesting"?

You don't need to be immersed in order to be fluent. I spoke English fluently years before ever coming to an English speaking country.

But that is, to me, one of)the points of this story. The constant dumbing down of everything under the sun in our society. You could demand that someone has to do their homework and learn to speak English, but instead we accept that the only way to do it is just by hanging around and acquire effortlessly it via osmosis. Why? Why is it acceptable that people don't have to make an effort?

My prejudice isn't against people who don't speak English fluently. It's against lazy people. Someone might be hard working and disciplined and just have no interest in moving abroad or learning English - there's nothing wrong with that.

Anyone else get the sense that these were laws written without any input whatsoever from people who actually have working experience in complex systems?

I'm convinced that no moral software engineer would ever suggest a conviction on the presumption that the system is correct. At minimum you'd have to investigate.

That's all I have to say about this.