andrewjl
There was a Swift Evolution proposal at one point to go all the way and bring in support for mixed Obj-C and Swift targets [1] but it was returned for revision. It talks about the multiple target workarounds:
> Distribute binary frameworks via binary targets. Drawbacks include that the package will be less portable as it can only support platforms that the binaries support, binary dependencies are only available on Apple platforms, customers cannot view or easily debug the source in their project workspace, and tooling is required to generate the binaries for release.
> Separate a target’s implementation into sub-targets based on language type, adding dependencies where necessary. For example, a target Foo may have Swift-only sources that can call into an underlying target FooObjc that contains Clang-only sources. Drawbacks include needing to depend on the public API surfaces between the targets, increasing the complexity of the package’s manifest and organization for both maintainers and clients, and preventing package developers from incrementally migrating internal implementation from one language to another (e.g. Objective-C to Swift) since there is still a separation across targets based on language.
The upshot is that SPM has a better interoperability story with Swift and C++ [2] and maybe that can serve as a foundation for getting to the same level of interop for Obj-C.
[1]: https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-evolution/blob/main/propo...
Teasing out the specifics of how much each of these contribute and separating that out from possible confounders like greater screening and others does seem like a tough study to design.
[1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/environmental-auti...
[2] https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/conditions/autism
Exempt or lighten planning requirements for affordable housing construction. California is going in this direction now.
There are other levers like subsidized financing for developers building homes targeting a certain price range as well as favorable tax treatment of those profits.
A lot of these have would probably have some bipartisan support.
> “There are several papers that question the existence of dark matter, but mine is the first one, to my knowledge, that eliminates its cosmological existence while being consistent with key cosmological observations that we have had time to confirm,” Gupta confidently concludes.
> In the United Kingdom, he was called "Slater the Traitor" and "Sam the Slate" because he brought British textile technology to the United States, modifying it for American use. He memorized the textile factory machinery designs as an apprentice to a pioneer in the British industry before migrating to the U.S. at the age of 21.
https://elsevier-ssrn-document-store-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/2...
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ee7a7d964aeed7e5c507...
https://www.centreforpublicdata.org/blog/freeing-the-paf-our...
There is some awareness of BPAs role in affecting the endocrine system. As the paper mentions merely being BPA-free doesn't mean one is out of the woods. All bisphenols are to some extent as disruptive as BPA is. Hadn't known that.
There's a list of other bisphenols here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol
That said, Medicare and other entitlements is where my mind went too as I was reading. Negotiating drug prices is a good step in this direction by the current administration.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/local/2024/08/16/10-pres...
That's been the trend across the past several administrations.
Would population-scale (of those that can still be found) genetic sequencing help point the way to an answer? It's relatively cheap now, compared to before, and odds are will be more so.
If you're talking about the 1950s a non-trivial percentage of married American women at that time routinely took stimulants and barbiturates.
[1]: https://privacytools.seas.harvard.edu/courses-educational-ma...
The sibling reply expressed this as well. Wile E. runs off a cliff, the forward momentum keeps gravity in check but only for a short time.
The fact that human population continues to grow isn't by itself sufficient evidence that there are no existing parallel, possibly embryonic, trends developing that'll change that later. The period where both of these are true would be similar to when Wile E. is no longer on solid ground and hasn't yet fallen. It's a temporary and (on a relative basis, which could exceed human lifespan for sufficiently complex or slowly moving trends) brief period.
To be clear, I don't think it's an accurate view of where we are today. On the other hand, had the changes we've seen since 1970s not come to pass, it'd be harder to say. (An example that is climate change specific is the exponentially decreasing cost curve for solar energy.)
> Either way, I wasn't attempting a definitive list with my two items and "etc"
So long as the focus is on the definitive then IMHO there is value in looking hard here. Otherwise, why bother?
> Today's weapons are definitely scarier than 1970s weapons.
Can you say more?
How do you imagine these features getting exposed to end-users? (When LLMs are discussed people default to thinking in terms of chat interfaces but to your point that doesn't have to be a hard and fast rule.) Do you think there will some sort of primitives that'll get exposed as APIs to developers, like with CoreML[1] for example?
[1]: (https://developer.apple.com/machine-learning/core-ml/)
https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/vision-transforme...
> The question is, when will Warren Buffett pull out of the Apple stock?
So much to unpack here.
The best counterargument to the population trend argument is that we're in the midst of a Wile E. Coyote period. Along with that though one still needs to account for:
- What's different about weapons today versus say 1970s?
- Why climate change, despite being a serious (and to be clear: actual risk), isn't amenable to solutions like the Montreal protocol that've succeeded in the past?