That led me to this ad. It reminds me of a time (up until around OSX 10.6) when every single release was faster, more efficient, and clearly an improvement over the previous system.
The real question is whether Esperanto has too few people to have a good writer, or whether it's actually hard to have good poetry in the language. After all, even in English, it's not every decade you get a good poem.
That's why synthetic languages like Esperanto never succeed beyond a small circles of fans: you can't write poetry in them, or even any stirring emotional prose.
Even if the technology were ready right now at this moment, adapting it to replace half of all jobs would still take more than ten years. There are plenty of things that can easily be done by computer, that are not, because it takes time and money to get them ready to use.
I'm suspicious of anyone who calls HTML 'venerable.' They should call it, "notorious" or "infamous," maybe, "expectorant." Marc Andreesen points out there are just problems with it, and I can't see OOP fixing things.
So, I looked at this guy's project, and it's better than I expected. The major problem it solves is: "how do you avoid repeating yourself, while still keeping things flexible?" The common approach right now is to either throw it into a CSS library (like Bootstrap) or write Javascript to produce the HTML. The latter idea there sounds like a joke but it's not.
In comparison, this lets you break things into components (like React does), but without any cost to the front end. Overall a good approach, but likely to get lost in the noise of a thousand other web frameworks.
Worth mentioning that this needn't be homo sapien, at that early date it would probably be some other type of humanoid, since we had barely crawled out of Africa at that point.
They're at least 1,500 years old, that is, we have complete manuscripts that old. We have manuscripts of some parts (like the Isaiah scroll) that date to ~400 BCE.
That's kind of topic, but now you can get your dates right.
Weird thing is, everyone's estimate is off by a factor of roughly X, but the value of X changes from person to person. The key is to figure out what your own personal X is and start using it.
If you're the kind of person who is consistently late, then your manager already does this without telling you.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, possibly.
That's true. As long as nesting things in HTML has a visual meaning, people will use HTML 'wrong'
Yeah, if you go back farther, automation has taken 99% of our jobs. And that's a good thing.
No, it's because good OSX engineers left, and were replaced by product managers.
Having an extra core should not slow things down, if it does, you are doing things horribly wrong.
Thanks. I didn't realize Esperanto looked so much like German.
Any examples of 'stirring prose?'
That led me to this ad. It reminds me of a time (up until around OSX 10.6) when every single release was faster, more efficient, and clearly an improvement over the previous system.
That is no longer true.
The real question is whether Esperanto has too few people to have a good writer, or whether it's actually hard to have good poetry in the language. After all, even in English, it's not every decade you get a good poem.
That's why synthetic languages like Esperanto never succeed beyond a small circles of fans: you can't write poetry in them, or even any stirring emotional prose.
Is that really true? I don't know, I'm wondering.
And thus the original poster was enlightened.
Even if the technology were ready right now at this moment, adapting it to replace half of all jobs would still take more than ten years. There are plenty of things that can easily be done by computer, that are not, because it takes time and money to get them ready to use.
you have to admit that it's been a success by pretty much any measure
It wins in exactly one measure: popularity. It's a huge pain to get things on the page where you want them.
I'm suspicious of anyone who calls HTML 'venerable.' They should call it, "notorious" or "infamous," maybe, "expectorant." Marc Andreesen points out there are just problems with it, and I can't see OOP fixing things.
So, I looked at this guy's project, and it's better than I expected. The major problem it solves is: "how do you avoid repeating yourself, while still keeping things flexible?" The common approach right now is to either throw it into a CSS library (like Bootstrap) or write Javascript to produce the HTML. The latter idea there sounds like a joke but it's not.
In comparison, this lets you break things into components (like React does), but without any cost to the front end. Overall a good approach, but likely to get lost in the noise of a thousand other web frameworks.
Because any known physical process can be simulated in silicon.
To say it differently: the people who live next to Google better have a lot of bandwidth.
Well you definitely make clear your own personal beliefs haha.
"What is a good diet for human beings" is definitely a meaningful question.
It's still bad.
That's a good point, too.......something picked up a rock and broke bones with it, but other than that, we don't know what something is.
Worth mentioning that this needn't be homo sapien, at that early date it would probably be some other type of humanoid, since we had barely crawled out of Africa at that point.
They're at least 1,500 years old, that is, we have complete manuscripts that old. We have manuscripts of some parts (like the Isaiah scroll) that date to ~400 BCE.
That's kind of topic, but now you can get your dates right.
Uh, what's wrong with carbon dating?
Weird thing is, everyone's estimate is off by a factor of roughly X, but the value of X changes from person to person. The key is to figure out what your own personal X is and start using it.
If you're the kind of person who is consistently late, then your manager already does this without telling you.
Good call. Another stupid monopolistic practice that makes all of us suffer (albeit trivially in that case).
Nah, the laws need updating. Companies have found ways to work around them.
So you're saying rich people shouldn't get better care than poor people, and that's what you mean by progressive. Reasonable definition.