err... what? Split your code into multiple source files and open each one in a different colored emacs. Why does everything have to be so complicated?
Cross-calling is one of the nastiest things you can do in terms of efficiency, as all variables have to be checked as being valid in the callee environment. Strings are difficult enough, but arrays and lists vary dramatically between languages in their internal implementations. This is why people hardly ever cross-call (and when they do, it's typically to C, where they've coded up direct representations of all the required datatypes from the host language.)
Don't you remember the President's rousing State of the Union address in 1995?
Peaches come from a can,
They were put there by a man
In a factory downtown
If I had my little way,
Id eat peaches every day
Sun-soakin bulges in the shade
"The only technology i can thank you Americans for is the depleted uranium still poisoning our children and generations that you dropped on us."
The only depleted uranium munitions I can think of were KE rounds fired at Iraqi tanks in the 2 gulf wars.
and if you're an Iraqi you've got more to worry about than the USA
Right now, yes. But after however many years it takes for ISIS to burn out or be defeated, the depleted uranium will still be there, causing unnecessary cancers.
You mean James Clerk Maxwell wasn't Scottish?
Or are you saying Heinrich Hertz wasn't German?
Or maybe even that Giugliemo Marconi wasn't Italian?
Perhaps I was wrong about Reginald Fessenden's birthplace, Québec, being a province of Canada, and it is in fact a US state?
television,
Facsimile: Alexander Bain (Scotland), improved by Frederick Bakewell (England)
Rasteriser: Paul Julius Gottlieb Nipkov (Germany)
Term "television" coined by Constantin Perskyi (Russia)
Amplification tubes: Lee de Forest (USA), Arthur Korn (Germany) et al
First instantaneous transmission of images: Georges Rignoux and A. Fournier (France?)
CRT: Karl Ferdinand Braun (Germany)
Nipkov disc wireless viewing: Charles Francis Jenkins (USA) and John Logie Baird (Scotland) (independently)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not countries that invent stuff -- it's scientists and engineers. And scientists and engineers don't respect borders, stubbornly sharing knowledge and learning across worldwide networks, and building on each other's successes to make successively greater and greater things. For any country to try to claim any invention as its own is to appeal to ignorance.
The Marshall Plan wasn't what stopped the USSR where they were -- only two things did: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the USSR had made the first atomic weapons, then we'd be living in a very different world.
B) I would think it would be more cruel to let someone go on thinking they are doing something wrong than let them know that people simply aren't interested in the subject matter.
Ah, so you know the poster in question in person and are aware that he/she's boring...? No? Then you're just being a twat, because you have no idea what BlueCoder is like in conversation.
It seems like you are incapable of discerning what information is truly relevant to a story because I have never had to "reinvent the scenario" regardless of the story. Alternatively, it's entirely possible your stories are simply not of interest to others.
That was somewhat uncharitable of you. BlueCoder, the GP, is openly talking about his/her difficulty in telling people things, and you basically say "or maybe you're just boring". I have a similar behaviour pattern to BlueCoder, in that once I start explaining something to someone, I want to be complete. It becomes a source of frustration if I'm not allowed to finish. Unlike BlueCoder, I don't feel like I've lied when I don't get to finish; rather I feel like the other person doesn't understand me, and it's a bit of a block to further interaction. I don't value the other person's response, because if they don't have the whole information to start with, how can they adequately respond? How can I value a response that is made in ignorance of what it's responding to?
If one looks for example at Hillary's Politifact rating she has a larger fraction of true or mostly true statements than most major politicians
Probably true. But comparing politicians tendencies to lying is all a bit academic -- it's like trying to rank delegates at a Nazi party rally from most to least anti-Semitic...
Like your word processor is the English language, you mean? Like the hammer is the nail? You seem to have trouble with separation of concerns.
That's an invalid comparison. Computer programming languages are designed exclusively for the communication of instructions from a human to a computer. You can (if you want) write a piece of code on a bit of paper, but the main purpose of doing so (outside of the classroom) is to later input it into a computer so that the computer will do something. It's not for communication between humans, and the computer doesn't write responses to the programmer in the same language.
So we have something that is designed for communicating instructions to a computer, that is almost always authored in a computer-mediated environment. It seems a bit silly that the computer isn't interpreting the code as it is entered, and everything is delayed until the programmer hits "compile" (or just "enter" in REPL environment).
And then we build these IDEs that do syntax highlighting, parenthesis matching and block hiding/folding for us, and they're reinterpreting the code using a parse that may or may not match the language compiler/interpreter itself. It lets us make loads of silly little mistakes because it doesn't know enough about the language to spot when we've made a mistake.
So the IDEs get more sophisticated, and start trying to interpret scope and suggest valid identifiers when we start typing, but we still can't be 100% sure the computer isn't confusing two different things.
All this is because we have two separate mediations by the computer, programmed by different teams, instead of one; all this is because the IDE isn't the language. What I'm proposing is a language where the IDE is the language, but not a half-hearted attempt like Scratch which slows you down by taking your hands off the keyboard. Not one that restricts your choices to a screenful of drag-and-drop elements. One that gives you all the elements of the richest, most powerful languages used in professional and academic circles, but lays them out clearly and unambiguously, instead of hiding the semantics in an obscure string of #@! declarations.
What you need is a powerful IDE that renders the old fashioned sequential plain text source code in the way you describe. I see no reason why that couldn't be done.[snip]
And there are good reasons to stick to plain text for source code. There are people who are more productive using powerful text editors such as vim than using heavy IDEs.
The reason they're more productive in plaintext is A) because the language is designed for plaintext, and B) they know the source code. The productivity problems really come in when you're dealing with code maintenance, which is a lot of the code lifecycle -- hell, most of us average mortals struggle to maintain our own source.
I have been in emergency situations where source code urgently needed to be fixed while the workstations with fancy IDEs weren't available due to other problems occurring simultaneously but a plain text editor and other basic tools were. When you have to get things done with more basic tools than you normally use it's important those tools can handle your code.
But if the IDE is the language, surely you would have the IDE on any machine using the language...?
And don't forget search tools, diff tools, merge tools, SCMs, etc. There are loads of useful and essential programs that work best with plain text. The simplicity of plain text has huge benefits.
What you're talking about is presentation. Keep that separate from the core, just like you keep your presentation layer separate from the domain logic in applications. In other words, implement your presentation requirements in your IDE and don't make the mistake of thinking that won't be able to handle plain text source code in a powerful way, otherwise you're likely to create more problems than you solve.
OK, I don't suppose there's any harm in the source code having a plaintext representation.
"... Picat "is a multi-paradigm programming language aimed for general-purpose applications, which means theoretically it can be used for everything in life,"..."
They better hurry. Perl is way ahead on the multi-paradigm thing.
Multi-paradigm will always kill readability until we accept that sequential plain-text files are unnecessarily limiting.
In programming, we're taught to keep lines short for readability, as something like "[i]x = ((i+j/a)+(x+5)/4*sin(s^x/4)/3)*2/6)+34[/i]" is so difficult to read that I can't be sure I've matched my parentheses without counting, and I can't tell what the calculation does. But if those divisions were rendered on-screen in the international standard mathematical way of placing the dividend over the divisor with a line in between (like the way vulgar fractions are presented) and the exponentiation was rendered by formatting the exponent in superscript (as is also standard), the whole thing would be instantly visually understandable to anyone with a good level of high-school maths.
You may not think that this has a lot to do with multi-paradigm, but maths itself is a paradigm (everything in computing could be achieved by direct manipulation of numbers -- it wouldn't be easy, but it would be possible) and it requires a rendering that is fundamentally different from flow control structures, for example.
And flow control has specific rendering requirements too: cf. the argument between block delimiters and semantic whitespace. Semantic whitespace exists basically because if you have non-semantic whitespace, the language semantics may not match what the reader sees, if there is line indentation that doesn't match the blocks. So get rid of all the whitespace, and let the editor render the indentation on-screen in a way that makes the logical structure immediately apparent.
Now imagine getting rid of "decorators" and just having a different font telling you clearly that you're looking at a different type of code. Suddenly we're free to start inlining SQL queries without a bunch of function call cruft and wrapping dynamically-created literal strings in procedures.
Communism is quite the opposite, because it is about local direct democracy
BS. Once you choose the Glorious Collective over the Deplorable Individual, an authoritarian at the top becomes inevitable.
[snip]
Communism and Socialism (a.k.a. Communism-lite)
This is the classic mistake of conflating communism and socialism. Communism is inherently decentralised, so the idea of an authoritarian is actually pretty alien to it. But the USSR was not called the Union of Soviet Communist Republics, was it? It was socialist, which puts ownership at the level of society, not the commune. Once you establish state socialism, that's when authoritarianism becomes likely.
Most of what we call "socialist" in Europe isn't truly state socialism -- most "socialists" are in favour of a mixed economy, and are more interested in getting infrastructure in public ownership than industry.
Except that's utterly, utterly ridiculous. It makes no sense whatsoever as a business model and is unattractive to the majority of travellers. That is, assuming that they are even aware of that being how you're supposed to use the site, as you can't exactly publish this on the front page, or you're effectively admitting to being a short-term let service.
Besides (and here's the kicker) if you are signing up on a site to be a long-term landlord, you're going to have to register as a long-term landlord. You're going to have to do all your fire safety checks. You're going to have to get proper insurance. And if someone wants to move in long-term, you're going to be forced into letting them.
How are you going to sue without government regulation? If you don't want any elites telling you what to do, then we end up descending to the law of the jungle. If your friendly neighbourhood lead smelter has a bunch of hire goons, you're SooL...
Telling people what can and cant do with their own property is called Communism.
No, under Communism there is no private property at all — it is all communal. What you are describing is Fascism. It is generally better than Communism, but still quite nasty — and inefficient.
I believe you're actually talking about authoritarianism. Fascism is authoritarian, but there are non-fascistic authoritarian systems too. Communism is quite the opposite, because it is about local direct democracy (in "communes"), and most so-called "communist" countries have instead been authoritarian. You could even describe Stalin as history's most successful fascist, as he was an authoritarian leader running the largest, most integrated state machinery in the world, and he favoured one nation and its people over all others in the world, and even over other nations within the USSR.
The owner won't offer the property as "available" again until the renter actually vacates the property, whether that's the full 60 days or after a single week. As soon as the property is available, the owner simply relists it again as open for booking. In short, no conflicting bookings would be made. It only becomes available for renting after it's been vacated.
The sudden, "unplanned" availability may even work in the owner's favor in some cases,
But in the majority of cases, accommodation is booked before travel. I'm certainly not going to book a transatlantic flight on a 747 and start looking for a room two days before I fly!
AirBnB works because it's simple. If it's not simple, it doesn't work.
Much of Airbnb is selling inferior goods (excess capacity) [snip] Airbnb - where most property owners are trying to gain revenue from that which previously generated zero revenue.
That is completely tangential to the point of the law -- it's about owner-not-present lets. That means it not aimed at those selling their excess capacity, but those using it in what is effectively a professional capacity -- they are businesses, and they're currently failing to register as such. This means that they're ducking the tax and safety regs that apply to landlords operating long-term lets, and they're ducking the tax and safety regs that apply to short-term rented accommodation.
AirBnB has always recognised this as a problem and has explicitly forbidden it (if not globally, certainly in many countries, so why are they complaining about a law which supports their user policy? Because they only pay lip-service to the problem and are happy to continue to profit from it. A year or two ago they had a widely reported purge of accounts with more than one property (because logically at least one must be owner-not-present), but if they're complaining about this move, then clearly it was all a piece of theatre aimed at stalling any regulatory intervention being introduced.
BTW, I'm not saying you have to buy expensive headphones either. I have what are to me perfectly usable Bluetooth headphones that were $20. (I also had previously bought ones that _looked_ like the old iPhone earbuds with just a wire between them, and 2 of them broke within weeks.. they were crap)
Yes, and it's very difficult to identify the crap from the cool at the counter. Besides, when you buy new analogue wired headphones, you are buying electronics. When you buy new Bluetooth headphones, you're buying electronics plus microelectronics plus Li battery. Suddenly, the lifespan of the solid state microelectronics is reduced from decades to three or four years (battery degradation) and if any fault occurs in the speaker coil/cone, the microelectronics are immediately rendered useless for most consumers. Microelectronics are a significant pollutant both during manufacture and at the time of disposal, so we shouldn't be allowing manufacturers to artificially increase our consumption.
Slashdot Mirror
err... what? Split your code into multiple source files and open each one in a different colored emacs. Why does everything have to be so complicated?
Cross-calling is one of the nastiest things you can do in terms of efficiency, as all variables have to be checked as being valid in the callee environment. Strings are difficult enough, but arrays and lists vary dramatically between languages in their internal implementations. This is why people hardly ever cross-call (and when they do, it's typically to C, where they've coded up direct representations of all the required datatypes from the host language.)
Don't you remember the President's rousing State of the Union address in 1995?
Peaches come from a can,
They were put there by a man
In a factory downtown
If I had my little way,
Id eat peaches every day
Sun-soakin bulges in the shade
Russia or the USA? It's an easier choice than the Cossacks faced in WWII: Stalin or Hitler?
you.... do know "CERN" is NOT a European city right??
So it's not the capital of the Cernese Oberland? I really must fix that satnav.
"The only technology i can thank you Americans for is the depleted uranium still poisoning our children and generations that you dropped on us."
The only depleted uranium munitions I can think of were KE rounds fired at Iraqi tanks in the 2 gulf wars.
and if you're an Iraqi you've got more to worry about than the USA
Right now, yes. But after however many years it takes for ISIS to burn out or be defeated, the depleted uranium will still be there, causing unnecessary cancers.
You're welcome for radio,
You mean James Clerk Maxwell wasn't Scottish?
Or are you saying Heinrich Hertz wasn't German?
Or maybe even that Giugliemo Marconi wasn't Italian?
Perhaps I was wrong about Reginald Fessenden's birthplace, Québec, being a province of Canada, and it is in fact a US state?
television,
Facsimile: Alexander Bain (Scotland), improved by Frederick Bakewell (England)
Rasteriser: Paul Julius Gottlieb Nipkov (Germany)
Term "television" coined by Constantin Perskyi (Russia)
Amplification tubes: Lee de Forest (USA), Arthur Korn (Germany) et al
First instantaneous transmission of images: Georges Rignoux and A. Fournier (France?)
CRT: Karl Ferdinand Braun (Germany)
Nipkov disc wireless viewing: Charles Francis Jenkins (USA) and John Logie Baird (Scotland) (independently)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not countries that invent stuff -- it's scientists and engineers. And scientists and engineers don't respect borders, stubbornly sharing knowledge and learning across worldwide networks, and building on each other's successes to make successively greater and greater things. For any country to try to claim any invention as its own is to appeal to ignorance.
The Marshall Plan wasn't what stopped the USSR where they were -- only two things did: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the USSR had made the first atomic weapons, then we'd be living in a very different world.
B) I would think it would be more cruel to let someone go on thinking they are doing something wrong than let them know that people simply aren't interested in the subject matter.
Ah, so you know the poster in question in person and are aware that he/she's boring...? No? Then you're just being a twat, because you have no idea what BlueCoder is like in conversation.
Nobody's going to change their vote based on a few off-topic posts on Slashdot, so we may as well laugh while the ship sinks.
It seems like you are incapable of discerning what information is truly relevant to a story because I have never had to "reinvent the scenario" regardless of the story. Alternatively, it's entirely possible your stories are simply not of interest to others.
That was somewhat uncharitable of you. BlueCoder, the GP, is openly talking about his/her difficulty in telling people things, and you basically say "or maybe you're just boring". I have a similar behaviour pattern to BlueCoder, in that once I start explaining something to someone, I want to be complete. It becomes a source of frustration if I'm not allowed to finish. Unlike BlueCoder, I don't feel like I've lied when I don't get to finish; rather I feel like the other person doesn't understand me, and it's a bit of a block to further interaction. I don't value the other person's response, because if they don't have the whole information to start with, how can they adequately respond? How can I value a response that is made in ignorance of what it's responding to?
If one looks for example at Hillary's Politifact rating she has a larger fraction of true or mostly true statements than most major politicians
Probably true. But comparing politicians tendencies to lying is all a bit academic -- it's like trying to rank delegates at a Nazi party rally from most to least anti-Semitic...
Like your word processor is the English language, you mean? Like the hammer is the nail? You seem to have trouble with separation of concerns.
That's an invalid comparison. Computer programming languages are designed exclusively for the communication of instructions from a human to a computer. You can (if you want) write a piece of code on a bit of paper, but the main purpose of doing so (outside of the classroom) is to later input it into a computer so that the computer will do something. It's not for communication between humans, and the computer doesn't write responses to the programmer in the same language.
So we have something that is designed for communicating instructions to a computer, that is almost always authored in a computer-mediated environment. It seems a bit silly that the computer isn't interpreting the code as it is entered, and everything is delayed until the programmer hits "compile" (or just "enter" in REPL environment).
And then we build these IDEs that do syntax highlighting, parenthesis matching and block hiding/folding for us, and they're reinterpreting the code using a parse that may or may not match the language compiler/interpreter itself. It lets us make loads of silly little mistakes because it doesn't know enough about the language to spot when we've made a mistake.
So the IDEs get more sophisticated, and start trying to interpret scope and suggest valid identifiers when we start typing, but we still can't be 100% sure the computer isn't confusing two different things.
All this is because we have two separate mediations by the computer, programmed by different teams, instead of one; all this is because the IDE isn't the language. What I'm proposing is a language where the IDE is the language, but not a half-hearted attempt like Scratch which slows you down by taking your hands off the keyboard. Not one that restricts your choices to a screenful of drag-and-drop elements. One that gives you all the elements of the richest, most powerful languages used in professional and academic circles, but lays them out clearly and unambiguously, instead of hiding the semantics in an obscure string of #@! declarations.
What you need is a powerful IDE that renders the old fashioned sequential plain text source code in the way you describe. I see no reason why that couldn't be done.[snip]
And there are good reasons to stick to plain text for source code. There are people who are more productive using powerful text editors such as vim than using heavy IDEs.
The reason they're more productive in plaintext is A) because the language is designed for plaintext, and B) they know the source code. The productivity problems really come in when you're dealing with code maintenance, which is a lot of the code lifecycle -- hell, most of us average mortals struggle to maintain our own source.
I have been in emergency situations where source code urgently needed to be fixed while the workstations with fancy IDEs weren't available due to other problems occurring simultaneously but a plain text editor and other basic tools were. When you have to get things done with more basic tools than you normally use it's important those tools can handle your code.
But if the IDE is the language, surely you would have the IDE on any machine using the language...?
And don't forget search tools, diff tools, merge tools, SCMs, etc. There are loads of useful and essential programs that work best with plain text. The simplicity of plain text has huge benefits.
What you're talking about is presentation. Keep that separate from the core, just like you keep your presentation layer separate from the domain logic in applications. In other words, implement your presentation requirements in your IDE and don't make the mistake of thinking that won't be able to handle plain text source code in a powerful way, otherwise you're likely to create more problems than you solve.
OK, I don't suppose there's any harm in the source code having a plaintext representation.
Damn. 20 years of programming and I'm still making the same bugs!
"... Picat "is a multi-paradigm programming language aimed for general-purpose applications, which means theoretically it can be used for everything in life," ..."
They better hurry. Perl is way ahead on the multi-paradigm thing.
Multi-paradigm will always kill readability until we accept that sequential plain-text files are unnecessarily limiting.
In programming, we're taught to keep lines short for readability, as something like "[i]x = ((i+j/a)+(x+5)/4*sin(s^x/4)/3)*2/6)+34[/i]" is so difficult to read that I can't be sure I've matched my parentheses without counting, and I can't tell what the calculation does. But if those divisions were rendered on-screen in the international standard mathematical way of placing the dividend over the divisor with a line in between (like the way vulgar fractions are presented) and the exponentiation was rendered by formatting the exponent in superscript (as is also standard), the whole thing would be instantly visually understandable to anyone with a good level of high-school maths.
You may not think that this has a lot to do with multi-paradigm, but maths itself is a paradigm (everything in computing could be achieved by direct manipulation of numbers -- it wouldn't be easy, but it would be possible) and it requires a rendering that is fundamentally different from flow control structures, for example.
And flow control has specific rendering requirements too: cf. the argument between block delimiters and semantic whitespace. Semantic whitespace exists basically because if you have non-semantic whitespace, the language semantics may not match what the reader sees, if there is line indentation that doesn't match the blocks. So get rid of all the whitespace, and let the editor render the indentation on-screen in a way that makes the logical structure immediately apparent.
Now imagine getting rid of "decorators" and just having a different font telling you clearly that you're looking at a different type of code. Suddenly we're free to start inlining SQL queries without a bunch of function call cruft and wrapping dynamically-created literal strings in procedures.
Just make sure that you have 5 years of experience because that's what all of the recruiters will be asking for.
That's why I invented Lie++
If you've got zero years experience, you'll need to invent Lie++++++++++
BS. Once you choose the Glorious Collective over the Deplorable Individual, an authoritarian at the top becomes inevitable.
[snip]
Communism and Socialism (a.k.a. Communism-lite)
This is the classic mistake of conflating communism and socialism. Communism is inherently decentralised, so the idea of an authoritarian is actually pretty alien to it. But the USSR was not called the Union of Soviet Communist Republics, was it? It was socialist, which puts ownership at the level of society, not the commune. Once you establish state socialism, that's when authoritarianism becomes likely.
Most of what we call "socialist" in Europe isn't truly state socialism -- most "socialists" are in favour of a mixed economy, and are more interested in getting infrastructure in public ownership than industry.
Except that's utterly, utterly ridiculous. It makes no sense whatsoever as a business model and is unattractive to the majority of travellers. That is, assuming that they are even aware of that being how you're supposed to use the site, as you can't exactly publish this on the front page, or you're effectively admitting to being a short-term let service.
Besides (and here's the kicker) if you are signing up on a site to be a long-term landlord, you're going to have to register as a long-term landlord. You're going to have to do all your fire safety checks. You're going to have to get proper insurance. And if someone wants to move in long-term, you're going to be forced into letting them.
How are you going to sue without government regulation? If you don't want any elites telling you what to do, then we end up descending to the law of the jungle. If your friendly neighbourhood lead smelter has a bunch of hire goons, you're SooL...
No, under Communism there is no private property at all — it is all communal. What you are describing is Fascism. It is generally better than Communism, but still quite nasty — and inefficient.
I believe you're actually talking about authoritarianism. Fascism is authoritarian, but there are non-fascistic authoritarian systems too. Communism is quite the opposite, because it is about local direct democracy (in "communes"), and most so-called "communist" countries have instead been authoritarian. You could even describe Stalin as history's most successful fascist, as he was an authoritarian leader running the largest, most integrated state machinery in the world, and he favoured one nation and its people over all others in the world, and even over other nations within the USSR.
Telling people what can and cant do with Their own property is called Communism.
Not by a long shot. And if you don't believe me, wait until the next person tells you where to shove it and check their political affiliations.
The owner won't offer the property as "available" again until the renter actually vacates the property, whether that's the full 60 days or after a single week. As soon as the property is available, the owner simply relists it again as open for booking. In short, no conflicting bookings would be made. It only becomes available for renting after it's been vacated.
The sudden, "unplanned" availability may even work in the owner's favor in some cases,
But in the majority of cases, accommodation is booked before travel. I'm certainly not going to book a transatlantic flight on a 747 and start looking for a room two days before I fly!
AirBnB works because it's simple. If it's not simple, it doesn't work.
Much of Airbnb is selling inferior goods (excess capacity) [snip] Airbnb - where most property owners are trying to gain revenue from that which previously generated zero revenue.
That is completely tangential to the point of the law -- it's about owner-not-present lets. That means it not aimed at those selling their excess capacity, but those using it in what is effectively a professional capacity -- they are businesses, and they're currently failing to register as such. This means that they're ducking the tax and safety regs that apply to landlords operating long-term lets, and they're ducking the tax and safety regs that apply to short-term rented accommodation.
AirBnB has always recognised this as a problem and has explicitly forbidden it (if not globally, certainly in many countries, so why are they complaining about a law which supports their user policy? Because they only pay lip-service to the problem and are happy to continue to profit from it. A year or two ago they had a widely reported purge of accounts with more than one property (because logically at least one must be owner-not-present), but if they're complaining about this move, then clearly it was all a piece of theatre aimed at stalling any regulatory intervention being introduced.
This isn't an attack on civil liberties.
BTW, I'm not saying you have to buy expensive headphones either. I have what are to me perfectly usable Bluetooth headphones that were $20. (I also had previously bought ones that _looked_ like the old iPhone earbuds with just a wire between them, and 2 of them broke within weeks.. they were crap)
Yes, and it's very difficult to identify the crap from the cool at the counter. Besides, when you buy new analogue wired headphones, you are buying electronics. When you buy new Bluetooth headphones, you're buying electronics plus microelectronics plus Li battery. Suddenly, the lifespan of the solid state microelectronics is reduced from decades to three or four years (battery degradation) and if any fault occurs in the speaker coil/cone, the microelectronics are immediately rendered useless for most consumers. Microelectronics are a significant pollutant both during manufacture and at the time of disposal, so we shouldn't be allowing manufacturers to artificially increase our consumption.
I'm confused. Which one is Trump?
The one that's bright orange, roars and generates a lot of hot air.