HN user
The point the article is trying to make is that Labubus were an abnormally short lived fad, and that’s their attempt at an explanation.
I don’t know if that exactly explains the short life of the Labubu fad, but I find the disappearance of shared culture quite evident these days.
My life hack for this kind of situation is to say “hello” back. Works every time.
It’s pronounced peeps by the way.
It’s hard to overstate the pervasiveness of WhatsApp in some some countries. Where I’m from work, service hiring, costumer service, etc are all conducted through (and specially for small businesses only though) WhatsApp.
I think it’s more like people want to enjoy the view without having to learn how to climb, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to want, even if it cheapens the experience somewhat.
It’s not really on my radar, but I’d be curious to know what other pieces of software get similar respect from their communities.
I’ve seen fishy looking engagement in hn before, but I’m inclined to think uv’s praise is genuine. It reflects the collective relief of seeing an extremely long and painful journey finally come to an end (hopefully).
Man, I’m so jealous of insane praise that uv (and most other astral tools) gets. I don’t think ever seen anything so unanimously lauded around here.
Redesigns are cool exercises and what you’ve done looks good mostly. It only shows top level comments though, and the text colour is unreadable in dark mode.
You say you’re trying to improve the original design, but it’s not clear to me how what you’ve done is an improvement.
If you really want to learn another language specifically instead of something else, then getting well acquainted with bash and awk wouldn’t be wasted effort.
When I migrated years ago (mostly to get access to some plugins), nvim gladly swallowed my old configuration with no changes. Then I could change to lua and other modern features at my own pace.
I’ve been using it for around the same time, and never cared much about formatters. Linting is useful but wouldn’t call it essential. But type checking is a non negotiable on any project I lead. It’s not perfect by any means, but beats having to crawl my way through a call stack trying to figure out what the hell a function is expected to take and why it’s getting a None instead.
I have yet to find a single drawback of adopting mypy (or similars) that isn’t completely eclipsed by the benefits.
Funny how the use of the acute accent instead of the macron for long vowels completely changes the “feel” of the written language to me. Makes it look less classy.
I’m not a qft-ist, but from the top my head the Higgs field wouldn’t explain the (likely positive) mass of neutrinos. So there could potentially be another mass creation mechanism. But someone else more informed could clarify.
Beware when mixing quantum field theory (Higgs) with gravity (attraction). We don’t have any idea how these two relate to each other.
Python people should think twice before implementing a `__call__` method if they want to improve greppability.
I however creates another, arguably bigger problem, it fragments the ecosystem.
That I meant to express yes. That those non-GIL-related optimizations would soften the blow of any slowdown from the GIL removal project.
If I attach something to my car it doesn’t affect your car.
Yes, that was my point.
For the majority who use Python for single threaded code, no-GIL will make their code slower because a thread-safe interpreter is always going to be slower than one that can assume ST operation.
I'm almost sure the python developers said that they will compensate the slow down with other optimizations, so that you'd never have single-threaded performance degradation version-to-version.
So no-GIL will only be faster for a minority of a minority who want parallelism but can’t use OS processes or subinterpreters.
One would hope to 1. open new use cases for python thus attracting developers that would have otherwise not given the language consideration and 2. other users could benefit from new optimizations that could be implemented further down the dependency stack.
Of course there's no guarantee that that will materialize, but the idea the adding support to an established, lightweight and well-supported concurrency primitive is so obviously a "stupid idea" shows to me that your (rudely expressed) opinion is entirely self-centered and nearsighted.
I might add that the move from python 2 to 3 was incredibly painful, but I assume most agree (with the benefit of hindsight) that it was entirely correct.
That's such a strangely distorted world view. If a car company releases a, idk, trunk-extension in response to customer feedback would you go "How is this Ford's problem? If you didn't think about the trunk size eat the loss and buy a new car" ? Python developers want python to remain useful to the developers who want to keep using the language. It's not an incomprehensible motivation.
The advanced lectures were the ones that finally clicked monads to me.
As someone who lives on the lizzy line, it's definitely far from perfect. It is improving however, and I cannot overstate the blessing that it has been on my life.
Is this a common opinion? After watching the video I couldn't imagine why anyone would be so bothered by the keyboard sounds in it, which is maybe just a little bit too loud? And way less distracting than the bad sound quality of the microphone used (which again, is pretty easy to get over).
Yeah but this is only possible if the sets in question are uncountably infinite.
You first split the sphere into an uncountable number of subsets, then group these into a finite number of subsets, whose measure sum to twice the measure of the original set.
(Un)countability is at the core of most of the counterintuitive results of measure theory, exactly because of the the third property of measure.
The core of the paradox is that that the intuition that the volume of a bunch of disjoint sets obey the law
V[A ∪ B ∪ C ∪ ...] = V[A] + V[B] + V[C] + ...
is only guaranteed if you have a countable number of sets[1]. If you split a sphere into an uncountable number of pieces in the right way (which requires the Axiom of Choice) you can break this rule without being inconsistent with measure theory.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics)#Definiti...
While brazilian society's relationship with race can be quite nuanced, the left-of-center political discourse is largely analogous to the US in this aspect (form my non-american perspective at least). So yeah, the translation was pretty accurate.
These fairy tales don't actually have an "original" version. Most of them were folk tales being told and retold for generations before being put to paper, and lots of details would change from time to time and place to place [1]. Disneyfying is just one more step in this process.
[1] Chapter 1 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Cat_Massacre
Pyramid, not triangle. Maybe the topological dimension of that is not 3, I don't know, I'm not familiar with the concept. But the fractal dimension is definitely 2.
The Sierpinski pyramid has Hausdorff dimension 2 but topological dimension 3, or am I mistaken?