That said, today Boa has a whole team of maintainers who I’m sure will answer some questions here.
Yes the name does invoke the sense it’s a Python project but I liked it and stuck with it, I saw a Boa snake at a zoo once and knew I wanted to name my next project after it, I was also inspired by Mozilla at the time who named their projects after animals.
Speaking of Mozilla, Boa’s existence came to be because at the time I was working on Servo and wanted to include an all-rust JS engine, one didn’t really exist so I set about making one as a learning exercise, after around 2 years more joined me on that journey and today Boa is around 8 years old. It is not browser grade (although at 94.12% it is more compliant than some browser engines) but that doesn’t matter, plenty of Rust projects have found good use for it as they find it easy to embed and use, so we’re happy.
Yes, that depends on the definition. Lamarck could fit into it, but he had no clue about DNA, genes and so forth; neither had Darwin. He babbled about gemmulae.
Even the definition of a gene is not very accurate. Many important sequences yield a miRNA or another RNA. Only few sequences yield a mRNA. Some "genes" are just integrated viruses/phages/transposons etc... that were modified. One of the most fascinating one was the retrovirus in regards to the mammalian placenta: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4332834/ but there are many more examples. We are all DNA hybrids at the end of the day. The whole species concepts makes very little sense these days, IMO. I can see the use case for eukaryotes, but it makes no sense to me for bacteria yet alone viruses.
You tend to distrust the propaganda of the other side. You are not quite as distrustful of the propaganda of your own side. If it is clever enough not to appear as a cheerleader like this article, you may barely notice it cherrypicking the benefits of a story.
Obligatory: "Are we the baddies?"-sketch illustrates the concept very nicely.
I've tried these things before. Use with caution, and definitely not on a work device. They never fully uninstall and you might be left with incorrect registry keys and other weirdness. May break updates as well.
Even without introducing LLMs into the equation, I've been brought on as the technical writer for many projects where the team says "oh, we already have a readme, you just need to clean it up" and then all of the readme definitions for parameters or settings or whatever are like:
BrickLock: The lock of the brick.
BrickDrink: The drink of the brick.
BrickWink: The wink of the brick.
...which is to say, definitions that just restate whatever's evident from the code or variable names themselves, and that make sense if you're already familiar with the thing being defined, but don't actually explain their purpose or provide context for how to use them (in other words, the main reasons to have documentation).
My role as a writer is then to (1) extract net-new information out of the team, (2) figure out how all of that new info fits together, (3) figure out the implications of that info for readers/users, and then (4) assemble it in an attractive manner.
An autogenerated code wiki can presumably do the fourth step, but it can't do the first three steps preceding it, and without those preceding steps you're just rearranging known data. There are times where that can be helpful, but it's more often just gloss
"Man I love Go, it's so simple, plenty fast, really easy to pick up, read, and write. I really love that it doesn't have dozens of esoteric features for my colleagues to big brain into the codebase"
"Oh yeah? Well Go sucks, it doesn't have dozens of esoteric features for me to big brain into the codebase"
Appreciate the writing and the author's fortitude in achieving their goals. While I never had friends, neither online nor in person, I cannot identify with this at all - it reads like a strange, obsessive seeking of external validation which I have never felt myself. Maybe I am just disinterested in people in general.
The "solutions" provided to me so far for my primary issue (using Ableton Suite DAW) has not worked. There is no practical solution that allows this software to function in a Linux environment successfully. I can open the app, but that's the extent of it. It's not usable.
> I so badly want to jump ship entirely, but there's several things holding me back. I do music production as a hobby and Ableton Live doesn't play nice with Linux. In fact it seems anything that is resource intensive without native linux support has some issues. I'm also an MS stack developer, so things like Visual Studio Pro aren't available (although I've been using Cursor IDE more and more these days). Lastly I have some games acquired through "the high seas" in which a work-around doesn't exist for compatibility.
> The responses I got were to switch to different software. No, no, and no. I paid a lot of money for Ableton Suite and poured many many hours into learning how to use it; it's the DAW I prefer to use, I don't want to switch.
> Having said this, I did try to dual boot recently with Linux Mint, and once again ran into headaches getting my Logitech mouse buttons to work.
It has been said that the main reason for the attack on Archive is because Israel needs to cover up their crimes. There is too much evidence in the open.
It's the equivalent of burning a library down because books have records of the truth.
Adguard deserves the highest praise for publicizing this attack on them.
Capitalism is circumlocutions of long dead people who provided little to society but the sound of their voice, vacuous writings.
So kind of the educated labor exploiters of the past to explain how the world must work. Very TINA of them.
Capitalism is people socially convincing each other there's a communal upside to capitalism. Sounds almost like socialist communist nonsense, this capitalism.
Strip away endless obfuscation the real economy is anything but physical statistics, it becomes clear capitalism is just empty rhetoric.
That depends on the definition. But, if we use the modern definition, it emerged (or re-emerged) in the 1990s. It's not old, indeed, but I also would no longer call it "very young". It's soon 40 years in the modern definition, and much older if we include prior discussions.
The full list of CAs with root certs in corporate browsers is fairly short. That's all that matters. If your CA isn't in $browser/$os cert root store then it's not going to be useful.
$ ls -lathr /etc/ssl/certs/ | wc -l
265
And of those far fewer are going to actually be giving out certs to human people. CAs are the chokepoint but I acknowledge that saying 'a handful' was hyperbolic. A few dozen.
The tiny fraction of computer users who have the capability and interest to do this qualifies as nerds in my book. I did not realize this was still a pejorative on a forum where we are mostly all technical experts in some domain or another. It is your computer - go nuts.
> South Korea is capable enough to build nuclear submarines even if the US had denied them the said facilities
Technically, yes. Politically, no.
“To produce fuel for the submarines’ naval propulsion, the ability to enrich uranium was required. However, this plan probably served two goals, since a country with enrichment capability can also enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels without significant difficulty. The fact that [former President Roh Moo-hyun] launched this plan less than five months after North Korea’s [2003] withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) supports the possibility that his ulterior motive was to acquire uranium enrichment capability in part to enable the future development of nuclear weapons. Ultimately, Roh had to abandon this plan in 2004 amid rising suspicion of South Korea’s nuclear ambitions after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovered that South Korean scientists had previously conducted an unauthorized enrichment experiment” [1].
> Yes I understand all of that, but I still choose to trust free services less.
Well, you can choose to do whatever you want, but given that you're posting to a public forum, it would be helpful if you actually explained your reasoning.
> Of course the (more secure?) alternative would be to generate self-signed certs, but for customer-facing sites that's a big UX problem.
It's not just a big UX problem, it's a big security problem, because the customers have no way of knowing if your certificate is actually valid.
