Readit NewsThe London subway system is just wonderful.
It's been my experience in endurance exercise is that if you are inexperienced in it, you overreact to certain signals from your body like rising CO2 or falling O2. After just small effort of a short duration you start gasping for air. Years later, in retrospect, you wonder why you did that.
Another adaptation, in high latitude outdoor runners, is the adaptation to inhaling cold, wintry air. The unbearable burning that feels like you're inhaling alcohol somehow goes away. The interesting thing is that it appears to be permanent. Even if you're out of the game for few years, that discomfort doesn't come back. Could be psychological. If you've been there and done that, you dismiss the discomfort signals and don't pay attention to them.
In general this moves way too fast for the density of the grammar it's trying to introduce, lines like:
> We have seen Awaitors already - suspend_always is an empty awaiter type that has await_ready returns false always.
But we haven't "seen" suspend_always, it's mentioned in half a sentence in an earlier paragraph, with no further context or examples.
There's a reason Lewis Baker's writings about C++ coroutines are 5000 word monsters, the body of grammar which needs to be covered demands that level of careful and precise definition and exploration.
FWIW, I think a useful addition would be for compilers to output the intermediate source code, so you can reason more easily about behaviour and debug into readable code.
My experience is not so much the attribution of human characteristics to non-human objects, but I understand why this might be the only accessible language of expression. For me, if a useful object is damaged or otherwise loses its usefulness through neglect or malice, I experience something like an emotional response. A good example would be a dull knife. There's something "sad" about an object whose nature or purpose it is to be sharp to lose or lack that sharpness.
Or perhaps a more subtle example would be a room whose contents are haphazard or in disarray. In that situation I would sense a lack of care or attention and there might be an emotional feeling that these objects had not been respected or appreciated.
It's (usually) easy for most people to care about other people. It's a little less easy, though still pretty common, for people to care about animals. The further away from recognizably human you get, the less people seem to care: e.g. insects, plants, bacteria, viruses, etc. For me there is something that "scales" down all the way to inanimate objects.
> ... As noted in the help doc, this isn't forward secure, so the moment they have the key they can decrypt everything. This is so far from being a meaningful e2ee platform it's ridiculous.
I'd be really curious to know if they really are baseless. It's very very difficult to imagine that K developers can really read a mess like this as easily as one might read Go or whatever.
https://github.com/KxSystems/kdb/blob/master/e/json.k
Has anyone tested this? Take a K program and ask a K developer to explain it? Or maybe introduce a deliberate bug and see how long they take to fix it compared to other languages. You could normalise the results based on how long it takes them to write some other code.
Free research project for any compsci researchers out there... (though good luck finding skilled K programmers).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal