It's a pretty enjoyable experience, and all of the graphics are ordinary HTML elements with 3D CSS transformations, which makes it super hackable and fun to crack open in an inspector.
All that to say, if the best chairs required intelligence, it'd be in everyone's best interest to make that intelligence real thrilled about ass.
that a lot
For them it seems safety and QA is a large part of the sales pitch, so that seems worth it.
For a while, many messengers actually shared underlying protocols (e.g. Google Talk & Facebook were both using XMPP at some point, and you could even cross-message).
Nowadays this is much harder. There's some exceptions (Telegram) with open client protocols, but I wouldn't wanna try and implement something like Discord, it'll be a never-ending tarpit.
All of this context to say that not once has anyone using Duolingo been able to "test out" of the first ("101") class that they teach. Duolingo self-learners come in with a very unequal mix of vocabulary and... not much else. Unable to use declension properly [0], unaware of most rules around gender, verb tenses, etc.
I'm sure (and I should look it up) that there have been academic papers written on these quite different methods/approaches: gamified learning vs "academic" learning, immersion by moving to a country, etc.
But in my parents' experience of teaching (which spans ~40 yrs), Duolingo students pretty much all became disappointed in the app: these students thought that they had developed skills when it turns out they mostly got addicted to a game that overpromised useful learning over entertainment.
---
Imho, the ugly truth is that language learning as an adult is deeply hard and requires a tremendous amount of effort and "tricks" to keep yourself motivated. People who watch native media with subtitles, play with AI apps (such as the YC backed https://www.issen.com/ which is quite nice), take a mix of "classic" classes, spend time in a country where the language is spoken and force themselves into situations where they "have" to speak, etc. all do much better. But it's a ton of effort.
There's no gamification like in Duolingo, you have to bring your own motivation and endure the UI, but it really does get you to the level where you can continue on your own.
This is one of the main things keeping me tied to the Google ecosystem, a lot of services require me to have an app that's only available on the play store.
My bank provides the APK of their app directly on their website, and it supports updating itself after that. Actually a surprising amount of apps do this!
Other proprietary stuff I either get from RuStore (Russia-specific), or occasionally from APK mirrors / Aurora. At the moment I have no such apps (they're usually for some specific thing, e.g. an airline app that I need for a day or two).
The comment you are replying to is correct, and you are incorrect.
All OTP APIs are usable as normal within Gleam, the language is designed with it in mind, and there’s an additional set of Gleam specific additions to OTP (which you have linked there).
Gleam does not have access to only a subset of OTP, and it does not have its own distinct OTP inspired OTP. It uses the OTP framework.
The library the parent links to says this:
> Not all Erlang/OTP functionality is included in this library. Some is not possible to represent in a type safe way, so it is not included.
Does this mean in practice that you can use all parts of OTP, but you might lose type checking for the parts the library doesn't cover?