> The book you're describing sounds like "Rainbows End" by Vernor Vinge. In this near-future sci-fi novel, set in 2025, one of the subplots involves a project called the "Library Project," where the UCSD (University of California, San Diego) library decides to digitize its entire collection. The process is somewhat as you described: books are destructively scanned by being shredded into tiny pieces, which are then scanned and digitized, with the text being reconstructed from the scans. This process is a part of the broader themes of the book, which include the effects of technology on society and the concept of "wearable computing" and augmented reality. Vernor Vinge, a retired San Diego State University professor of mathematics, computer scientist, and Hugo Award-winning author, is well-known for his works in the science fiction genre, especially for exploring the concept of the technological singularity.
Readit NewsCan you share any more detail? Are you saying there are companies that build software on top of FoundationDB as their primary data store? or are those companies building software around FoundationDB that in turn presents as more of a data store in the traditional sense?
https://www.snowflake.com/blog/how-foundationdb-powers-snowf...
But yeah you're right for the most part. Turns out pretty much any database can be written in terms of transactions of KV pairs, which is what foundationdb gives you, so it means you can write your database query layer as a stateless, scalable service.
There have been attempts to write a SQL RDMS layer for it but it isn't maintained.
This is different to platform teams which are meant to mostly build internal services which other teams use with self service, meaning they don't directly interact with members of the platform team (allowing both teams to operate independently). That said, platform teams may occasionally collaborate with steam aligned teams when building out new features or to better understand the problems the stream aligned teams are having.
I’d also quibble about the buttons on the coffee machine. They might be properly designed, just subject to the normal wear-and-tear that is inevitable in the real world. This is not a defect, physical devices have finite lifespans.
As far as computers go… if we got to the point where the main thing that killed our programs was the hard drives falling apart and capacitors drying out, that would be quite impressive and I think everyone would be a little bit less critical of the field.
As the discipline has evolved, the high integrity tools are slowly being incorporated into typical languages and IDEs to generally improve quality cheaper. Compare C++ to rust for example, whole classes of bugs are impossible (or much harder to make) in rust.
Is that the case? And if so, is there evidence OpenSign has done this kind of SME research to make sure the electronic signatures are legally binding, or is this more "we brought in some devs and UI designers and built something" without actual legal review and guidance?
If something is hard, that's an argument for making a standard not for profit version of it, so it becomes a common good instead of platform rent seekers keeping out competition by saying it's "too hard".
This solution was devised as a means to add keywords to new editions of the language without breaking code written in the old edition that named this stuff the same as the keyword (and with full interoperability between code from new editions and old editions)
So if some function in some Rust 2015 library was named async (a new keyword introduced in Rust 2018), you can call it like r#async() in newer versions
I completely disagree with this notion of science. To me science is the practice of analysing findings from controlled experimentation and then deriving predictive, reproducible and falsifiable hypotheses.
What evidence is important to making progress and what evidence is irrelevant?
What does progress in understanding an area look like? Why should we undertake it?
These are questions of philosophy, no experiments can answer them.
For example async required iOS 15.0. Why is this tied to the OS? Why can't they include newer runtimes be downloadable like Node / Java / .NET etc?
Other examples are from SwiftUI. For example the NavigationStack appears much more useful than the older NavigationView but that requires iOS 16. Which means that you can't support anything older than an iPhone X.
That could be fixed by just shipping an updated shared library to all phones similar to how Google play services works on Android, but I guess they figure if you're updating anyway you might as well just update the whole OS.
Maybe I'm getting old and jaded, but that's not really the spirit of open source.