HN user
This is not true at all. I have personally looked into a reactor pool. I remember thinking how easy it would be to literally just jump in. I mean, I'd trip about a thousand alarms and probably end up in prison, but....
I'm not following you at all. Carbon was an API for Mac OS X, not a programming language. It was a C API, not an Objective-C API. (Maybe you are mistaking it for Cocoa, which required Objective-C on 64-bit platforms.) What relationship does this have to the new Carbon programming language?
Google did clobber another programming language with Go.[1] It was a truly a-hole move.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language)#Nami...
It's the classic cycle of abuse.
Sums up Linus Torvalds perfectly.
I don't think it matters. Do you? Abusive people who are enabled by their privilege need to have that privilege restricted. I believe they deserve such restriction as a form of punishment, a moral consequence of their abusive behavior. But even if you reject that moral analysis—and there are reasonable arguments for doing so—putting or keeping abusive people in power harms the community, and keeping community members from being harmed by an abusive person is more than enough justification for restricting the privilege of that person.
Google "natural language processing."
Natural languages are highly ambiguous. Using a naive approach like Early's algorithm can lead to thousands of parse trees for a single sentence. Probabilistic grammar parsing algorithms attempt to discover the "most likely" parse tree with respect to a particular statistical model of the language grammar. As with parsing algorithms for formal languages, different algorithms make different trade-offs. "Best" only makes sense with respect to a particular metric: "Best" in what sense?
I personally don't know much about this area beyond what I just said.
I wonder if the same thing is possible with sight reading music.
Completely agree, but do we have to root for Mozilla if we want to root for Firefox?
Hope springs eternal in the hearts of men. Here's the thing: We have a LOT of evidence that those corporate promises mean nothing. There is a vast history inside and out of IBM of exactly this pattern of everyone saying nothing will change and then everything changes.
What you are saying to us is that the only reason you think nothing will change is that you really, really believe the IBM people. (Just like Palmer Luckey:https://thenextweb.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/03/...) But that's even less than what other companies have been able to offer skeptics. But we know
"Seventy percent of U.S. acquisitions in the United States negatively impact the acquiring company’s results, sometimes immediately, and often continuing many years after purchase. Approximately 40 percent of the acquisitions of the last 10 years brought devastating business results. In about 80 percent of such cases, product or service, market share, and cultural impact are far below the goals anticipated in the beginning." https://media.terry.uga.edu/socrates/publications/2011/07/bi...
YOU might be convinced, but you haven't given anyone a reason to believe it.