wk_end

Where's "stateless" coming from? The underlying purpose of frameworks like React is to manage mutations to the fundamentally stateful DOM.

Canada has a free press, and many of its largest media outlets (the Sun, the National Post, the Globe, etc.) are strongly right-leaning and had no problems tarring Trudeau's Liberals night and day when he was in power. This is a problem you've invented, not the actual issue here.

100%. Although large handwritten software code bases are often indecipherable to the average human being (actually, almost always indecipherable to the average human being, but often indecipherable even to skilled software engineers too); sometimes due to inherent complexities, sometimes due to Enterprise-isms.

That's the way the world's been since the integrated circuit was first developed, for better or worse.

All OP is asking for is the ability to declare variables at first use instead of at the top of a function. You don't need closures or anything that'd inhibit C compatibility for this - C itself has supported this since C99. It's fairly simple if you're willing to give up single-pass compilation, which (I think?) FPC already has.

You don't need a library for this; the idiomatic approach is to lean on TypeScript's narrowing and native control flow (ifs and switches, or maybe IIFEs), along with (maybe) the never type to enforce exhaustiveness.

https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?jsx=4#code/JYWwDg9gTgLg...

I guess the library is slightly nicer, arguably, but I don't think it's worth the external dependency and added complexity.

You're underestimating how wrong this is going to be on average. This is going to be nonsense like half the time. It's not comparable to Google Translate, it's more comparable to Babel Fish circa 1997.

As a native English speaker, I interpret it as “you the reader”. Or maybe I should say, I don’t intuit any material difference between “you the reader” and “any given reader” or “one”. I think your original comment is a good critique of the headline.

No it doesn't; that's a common misconception.

Raycasting (in gaming, some graphics folks just use it as another term for raytracing) means to fire a ray for each column of the screen, identify where it collides with a wall, and use that to determine what to render for that column - it's basically per-column raytracing.

DOOM's engine instead uses a BSP tree so that, from any position, you can determine which walls are on-screen instantly just by walking the tree - the nearer walls appear earlier in the traversal than farther walls. It's still column-based (it tracks whether each column has been drawn and won't draw further walls behind an already drawn column, and stops drawing once all columns are filled), but there's no rays cast.

I'm not totally sure what you're trying to say. Even back in the days of "software rendering" - or on those embedded systems that you're describing - you still had a piece of graphics hardware that converted the frame buffer into whatever got spit out to the monitor, so I don't think this is meaningful, really.

What's meant by software rendering is really software rasterization - the process of taking the triangles, textures, etc. of the scene and turning those into the pixels that eventually make their way to the screen. You can still do that in software on the CPU today without touching the GPU, even the integrated one. At that point you hand it off to the hardware to make its way to the screen, sure, but it's only an implementation detail that makes that different from handing 0xA0000000 over to the VGA card. The interesting part of the process, and the results, are functionally the same.

> if you want to experience GLQuake that looks like software-rendered Quake, that's a simple settings change in your GPU driver, overriding the texture sampling mode. That's literally the only difference.

Is that the case?

https://fabiensanglard.net/3dfx_sst1/ has a side-by-side screenshot comparison of the two, and software Quake's colours and lighting look way more rich and vibrant; it's not just smoother textures. It's possible that GLQuake/one of the many source ports since has improved on this though.

Of course I know this is a particular quality of GLQuake and not an actual limitation of hardware rendering. And I agree with in general with the contention that this article is talking about a particular art style associated with mid 90s software rasterizers rather than about "software rendering" itself.

That probably had more to do with decompression than sound mixing though, right?

"The arc of the moral universe is long but it reverts to the mean" is somehow less inspiring.

Even if they don't own the business, there's still the risk of the profit motive interfering with proper care - the business owners are going to put as much pressure as they can, one way or another, in subtle or not-so-subtle ways, on their dentists to push for expensive treatments. Bonuses, performance reviews, off-hand comments, and so on.

What’s meant by “rare” here? It seems like there might be a language barrier thing going on. There’s nothing rare about, say, John Sculley’s autobiography; I can buy it on Amazon new for about $20 or used for about $5.

Whether you agree or not, if you seriously can’t understand why people might be existentially (or economically!) anxious about the thinking machines, you may have already outsourced too much of your thinking to them.

Is there an associated machine-checked proof of this?

We're in full vibe-code mode at work, so I understand both how powerful frontier models can be and how often they can over-confidently state subtly (or not so subtly) wrong things, even when you're taking great efforts to try to keep that from happening.

So without a Lean development or extensive human verification, I guess I'm a little bit skeptical, and even sort of hoping this is wrong - not just because of my not so positive feelings about AI, but by my disposition towards beauty in math. n log n is an awful lot nicer than what we have here.

I think most people would say that's sort of the opposite of the meaning of the word "pragmatic", actually.

Japan, notoriously a country with an immigration policy that could in good faith be described as "unchecked".

This is a shift away from pragmatism; pragmatism would be acknowledging Japan's economic need for immigration.

Whether Europe or North America have a problem with too much immigration and not enough integration is debatable, maybe - and I suspect that's where your perspective comes from - but Japan decidedly does not (maybe too much tourism, and I feel at least some of the antagonism towards foreigners comes from that, but no matter). Immigrants still make up a very small percentage of the population, mostly in Tokyo; given the existing challenges with immigration, they tend to be extremely diligent, respectful, appreciative of Japanese culture, and hard-working.

This is just a populist conservative government pandering to the some of the worst aspects in society to distract from their failures.

If that hit you in the nostalgia, this is going to outright blow your nostalgia off its feet:

https://infinitemac.org/

> If not, then high prices generally comes back to supply and demand, which is driven a lot more by zoning and building restrictions than by small differences in rental law.

Not discounting the importance of supply/demand, or the damage that restrictive zoning regimes have done, but I'm not sure if this should be so strongly stated, depending on how you want to define "small differences in rental law". For example, per Wikipedia:

> In 1971, the Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a housing expert, said that "rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city – except for bombing". In 1989, Nguyễn Cơ Thạch, then Foreign Minister of Vietnam, observed, "The Americans couldn't destroy Hanoi, but we have destroyed our city by very low rents. We realized it was stupid and that we must change policy."

Obviously banning junk rental fees is not the same as rent control, but in either case we're talking about rental law that as an unintended second-order effect is going to (to some degree or another) discourage supplying rentals by making it harder to make money renting.

So, in the interest of being charitable to the OP, I think they're including zoning laws, building regulations, and so on in what they're saying: these cities claim to view housing as a human right, yet simultaneously seemingly do everything in their power to make it incredibly hard, expensive, and risky to supply it.

I don't agree that this attitude is exclusive to big progressive cities: the right theoretically claims to love free enterprise and deregulation, but in practice they're often just as happy with overbearing government control as long as it's their guy doing it. And if anything these days the right more than the left fetishizes certain images of American life that motivate stricter regulations on development; NIMBYism cuts across the political spectrum. But it's an attitude that maybe makes better bedfellows with the left and its intrinsic distrust of markets, and maybe afflicts those left-leaning coastal cities more because they're otherwise much better places to live and thus have higher demand.

> Between an art style that didn't age well and didn't grab me even then, obscure puzzles and a theme that doesn't interest me so much...

Everything's subjective, but I think most people would say that the art style was great then and is still great, and the theme is pretty unique and compelling. That's why people like it so much.

The puzzles and interface really are awful though, and I say that as someone with a reasonable tolerance for adventure game logic. It's far-and-away the worst-playing classic LucasArts adventure, and even though I'm sure there's plenty of adventure games with worse puzzle design, I'm struggling to think of one with a wider gap in quality between the game design and everything else. Everything's frequently so disjointed and it's such a slog to get around, it's not even one of those "use a walkthrough when you get stuck" games; it's a "just follow a walkthrough constantly" game, or maybe even a "just watch a longplay" game.

From a preservation perspective, this is one of the least useful decomps ever, given how committed Capcom is to making sure RE4 is ported absolutely everywhere (kidding!)

Made using the leaked debug build and its symbols, which shows how meaningful the work the game preservation community that acquires and distributes these things is.

OTOH this is pretty off-putting:

> Where the compiler needed a particular source shape to reproduce a register choice or a schedule and no natural spelling was found, the construct is marked with a // COMPILER-DIFF: comment (644 of them: dead tests, empty asm("") launders and anchors, register T x asm("rN") pins, padding statements).

To me the value of a decomp isn't reproducing the original bytes per se (we already have the original bytes after all) - it's about reconstructing the understanding of the original game as represented by human-readable source code; getting byte-for-byte is just an indication that you've gotten it right. Needing to add a bunch of slop to force the compiler to match the original output is actually just an indication that you've gotten it wrong - and it's a demonstration of the danger of Goodhart's law, especially as it applies to AI.

If I go to the vlang releases page, I see literally hundreds of releases https://github.com/vlang/v/releases

They haven't had a stable 1.0 release yet, but they've had many pre-1.0 releases. It's not some personal experiment that's been sitting in the dev's Github that people are piling onto; the author has gone out of their way to promote it, beg for donations, and lash out at any criticisms.

The issue has never been the quality of the language per se, the issue has been 1) wildly misrepresenting the quality of the language in the present tense; 2) not even having any kind of a realistic roadmap towards achieving the kind of outsized and implausible claims about the quality of the language; and 3) using these outsized, implausible misrepresentations as a way of soliciting hype and funding for the author.

Tomb Raider (1996) ostensibly required a Pentium, and I remember (though memory may be faulty) the demo refusing to run on my 486. Does this FPGA 486 support the additional Pentium instructions?

GP's snark is unwarranted, but it's probably good practice to disclose your professional affiliation explicitly in comments related to it, even if you have already disclosed it in your profile.

I was reading your comments on Java, nodding my head, upvoting, without checking your profile and realizing that you're a member of the Java team. Knowing that doesn't mean I now suddenly disagree with you or anything. But while in an ideal world it doesn't matter who's saying something when evaluating it, there's some human factors at play - I'd like to turn up my internal sense of skepticism when dealing with someone, effectively, selling something their salary depends on; even if you're being entirely earnest, it's ultimately a sales pitch, and I feel bamboozled for not recognizing it - that'd make me appreciate transparency.

(FWIW, even though I prefer being coy about my place-of-work, I have no professional relation to this conversation. I've never used Java in my 9-5 and I haven't even really used it in earnest since, like, version 5 back in high school. I think it's always been underrated by the hacker crowd, though!)

What were they moving towards?

And? Nuclear technology continues to be an excellent candidate for the Great Filter.