We had tried video in the car for our teens, but found that audio books worked a lot better - shared experience, nobody has a bad angle/line of sight, can still see the scenery and engage in the travel, less looking down prompting motion sickness, etc.
Though now that everybody has a device, we have to intentionally opt for a shared experience, rather than 1:1 devices.
Wow, politics seems the opposite to me. It has the morbid fascination of a train wreck. You can't stop it, you know it's going badly, yet you can't look away.
Family and building things are much more positive sources of energy to me.
That’s because you’ve become so accustomed to politics as tribalism and sports-like entertainment that you’ve completely forgotten why we even started the political systems we have today in the first place. Divestment of power, not accumulation. Serving others, not ourselves. You can still embody those things. But it’s better to admit to ourselves that we aren’t selfless enough to do that, than hide behind a learned helplessness.
I bet if you stop watching national popular news outlets and instead focus on local politics you'll find them much more tame. Of course this depends on where you live.
IMO People focus way too much on national politics and not enough on local.
In the US we have a couple hundred; structurally, though, only at most two are usually meaningfully competitive at any given time (both locally and nationally, though historically not always the same two in every area as nationally), and which two are nationally conpetitive is very stable (though one of the two has changed at two different times in US history, one of which involved a significant period of only one national competitive party with internal factions.)
I understand. In Canada we have only had two parties create a federal government. But 5 separate parties have formed government provincially. 5 parties have federal presence. And if we didn't have first-past-the-post voting, we would easily have Greens, NDPs, and others in seats of federal power.
that's an often repeated misconception about lisps.
lisps are pretty good at low-level programming, but then you'll need to make some compromises like abandoning the reliance on the GC and managing memory manually (which is still a lot easier than in other languages due to the metaprogramming capabilities).
there are lisps that can compile themselves to machine code in 2-4000 LoC altogether (i.e. compiler and assembler included; https://github.com/attila-lendvai/maru).
i'm not saying that there are lisp-based solutions that are ready for use in the industry. what i'm saying is that the lisp langauge is not at all an obstacle for memory-limited and/or real-time programs. it's just that few people use them, especially in those fields.
and there are interesting experiments for direct compilation, too:
BIT: A Very Compact #Scheme System for #Microcontrollers (#lisp #embedded)
http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~feeley/papers/DubeFeeleyHOSC05....
"We demonstrate that with this system it is clearly possible to run realistic Scheme programs on a microcontroller with as little as 3 to 4 KB of RAM. Programs that access the whole Scheme library require only 13 KB of ROM."
"Many of the techniques [...] are part of the Scheme and Lisp implementation folklore. [...] We cite relevant previous work for the less well known implementation techniques."
People always point out this as a failure, when it is the contrary.
A programming language being managed doesn't mean we need to close the door to any other kind of resource management.
Unless it is something hard real time, and there are options there as well, we get to enjoy the productivity of high level programming, while at the same time having the tools at our disposal to do low level systems stuff, without having to mix languages.
The recent Wizardry remaster encouraged me to go back and play other nostalgic games - finished Ultima I and II, but the nostalgia wasn't strong enough to keep going through the busywork and UI impedance of others.
I'll keep this one on my list for when nostalgia strikes again...
"while China was responsible for more than 60% of global increase in overall oil demand between 2013 and 2023, it represented less than 20% of last year’s rise, largely as a result of its slowdown in fuel use."
No, the article is very clear, right from the introduction that they are burning less oil as fuel in total.
It also says they used more oil in total, pushed by applications where it's not burnt. But that number is incompatible with other sources, so there's probably some totaling errors there.
The article was published in 2016, and the authors extrapolated from 7 data points (!) over about 7 years of progress in the world record. This is obviously insufficient to project 30 years into the future.
Though now that everybody has a device, we have to intentionally opt for a shared experience, rather than 1:1 devices.
reply