senand

https://www.openproject.org/blog/open-source-jira-alternativ...

I haven‘t used it myself, though

I suggest to use https://github.com/simonw/rodney instead

Off-topic, but it’s actually a she

How does this compare to ruff?

I use black and I like it. Where does ruff differ in terms of formatting?

I‘m no expert, but I wonder why Go Routine Style concurrency isn‘t more wide spread

Quote from https://distractionware.com/blog/2020/01/vvvvvv-is-now-open-..., linked in the article:

--- snip ---

There’s a lot of weird stuff in the C++ version that only really makes sense when you remember that this was made in flash first, and directly ported, warts and all. For example, maybe my worst programming habit is declaring temporary variables like i, j and k as members of each class, so that I didn’t have to declare them inside functions (which is annoying to do in flash for boring reasons). This led to some nasty and difficult to track down bugs, to say the least. In entity collision in particular, several functions will share the same i variable. Infinite loops are possible.

--- snip ---

This sounds so bad, and confirms my prejudice that gaming code is terrible.

Which doesn't protect these companies. The CLOUD act allows the US to access the data even if hosted outside of the US, if it's a US company - since 2018. That has been a looming threat ever since, but is now more perilous than ever.

That's true. They were numerous attempts to introduce a European alternative, which (more-or-less) failed. The US cloud providers are years ahead. However, the EU is suffering from that; the US companies pay some taxes, but far less than you possibly believe, and it conversely doesn't have any tax revenue from their own companies. Not to mention the political and data independence that are now more necessary than ever.

I like the simplicity. However, it is possible to rollout a feature flag only to a part of the user, e.g. a 1% canary release (cf https://martinfowler.com/bliki/CanaryRelease.html)?

If not, I'm not sure this brings more to the table than simple configuration changes that are rolled out through your next deployment, which should be frequent anyway, assuming you have continuous delivery.

This seems quite reasonable, but I recently heard a podcast (https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2024/06/24/280-...) that LLMs are more likely to be very good at navigating what they have been trained on, but very poor at abstract reasoning and discovering new areas outside of their training. As a single human, you don't notice, as the training material is greater than everything we could ever learn.

After all, that's what Artificial General Intelligence would at least in part be about: finding and proving new math theorems, creating new poetry, making new scientific discoveries, etc.

There is even a new challenge that's been proposed: https://arcprize.org/blog/launch

It makes sense that the process of thinking and the process of translating those thoughts into and out of language would be distinct

Yes, indeed. And LLMs seem to be very good at _simulating_ the translation of thought into language. They don't actually do it, at least not like humans do.

I don't disagree. However, often, when I use a library, I use it within a small function that I control, which I can then type again. Of course, if libraries change e.g. the type they return over time (which they shouldn't also according to Rich), you often only notice if you have a test (which you should have anyway).

Moreover, for many libraries there are types- libraries that add types to their interface, and more and more libraries have types to begin with.

Anyway just wanted to share that for me at least it's in practice not so bad as you make it sound if you follow some good processes.

why?

Isn't this better if you use DataSpell from Jetbrains instead of Pycharm?

No, each step could take significantly more time (and resources).

https://www.pokerstrategy.com/

I can't follow. Do you mean the culture of tribes is related to the overestimation of the impact of technology in the short-term, which Gates' Law mentions?

I had to laugh out loud. I want to say that's unrealistic, but alas, it unfortunately is not.

Yes, it's assuming poetry is used, whereby normally the packages needed by the project are defined in pyproject.toml

Interesting! Congrats on the launch.

I tried it out, and just first feedback:

- I often use the "Home" and "End" key to go the start/end of the line when I'm editing a cell. It scrolls to start/end of the whole spreadsheet, however. Since I'm not a spreadsheet user, I'm not sure if that's expected.

- The handlers like "on_dropdown_change" should receive an argument for the cell it's coming from, so you can e.g. change the cell that's next to it. Or how else is this supposed to be done?

It's quite cool :-) I suppose one problem could be integration with existing Google Sheets / Excel sheets?

Indeed, Pfannkuchen in Berlin

What about a price to CO2 (with equivalence calculation) emission? This would automatically make the (beef) meat significantly more expensive. And it would essentially just put a price on something which costs a price later anyway.

I want to say popular isn't _necessarily_ better. Your argument is a counterexample if I had said (which I didn't) that more popular were _always_ worse.

In the world of programming (and I guess elsewhere, too), there are simply many more aspects at play when "choosing" the programming language than purely how good the language itself is. Easiest example is Javascript were it's simply widespread because it was the only language available in the browser. I recommend again that you watch the video :-).

That doesn't mean the imperative languages are "better", though, just more popular. I recommend the following video titled "Why isn't Functional Programming the Norm?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyJZzq0v7Z4

I agree in principle. However, if you work imperatively, you'll use _much_ more (global) state than if you worked with a pragmatic functional language like Clojure. Which in turn leads to normal people not understanding what's going on, since humans are built to keep, say, 10 things (atoms) in mind, not 100.

Agreed, I see this as a code smell. It's already hard from a semantic point-of-view, normally you have then the same name for two different meanings.

Same here

Agreed. However, I still believe explaining acronyms is good practice.

All the best to Jadi

You simply won't be able to find world-class olive oil in supermarkets or on amazon. I can wholeheartedly recommend https://villahumbourg.it/en-index.html, 100% oil from one farm in Tuscany, for sure no Mafia infiltration and the new oil is just being harvested these days.

How I know that? It's from my mother, who I just visit for my holidays. I know I'm biased, but it's just the truth ;-)