I have a recurring problem where my Apple Watch won't sound the alarm if my sleeve or blanket is covering the screen. Like it won't even do haptic feedback. This has made it utterly useless as an alarm that's supposed to wake me up.
Given that is deterministic, it should be possible to just run the code and record the set of types that reach every parameter and variable.
A bit expensive, perhaps. And it breaks down if the code is in an intermediate state. Like, "I just deleted a comma, where did my type annotations go?"
Are you saying that every function can only be called with a consistent set of types in the parameters? It’s not possible to call a function two times and supply parameters that have different fields on them?
Unless that is true, the end result might not be ideal. You could certainly record the information that is there at every line of code at runtime, and you could probably calculate the union of the parameter types to find only the fields that are always there, which would be fairly okay I guess.
Frames are out, whitespace is in. I wonder if the 30-year fashion cycle applies and it will be cool/retro to have compact, discoverable UIs in the 2030s.
The type of visually dense user interface is still around where it’s unavoidable due to the complexity of the data model, e.g. DAWs, game engines and photo editing software.
But for simple consumer facing apps or websites, I don’t see it making a comeback, as it is more aesthetically pleasing and more usable to have simpler / sparser user interfaces for less tech savvy people.
> The type of visually dense user interface is still around where it’s unavoidable due to the complexity of the data model
No, it's not about the data model, that's a completely orthogonal matter. You could add more whitespace to e.g. Darktable, and put functionality which doesn't fit anymore into e.g. menus.
It's about the software being used for focused work. People invest some time learning it, but then expect that the work will be fast and efficient. More whitespace will mean you have to do more clicks to do the same thing in comparison to a more dense UI which costs time.
> and more usable to have simpler / sparser user interfaces for less tech savvy people.
I'd say it's often the opposite. More visible data presents more context, more opportunity to lead the user and visually explain what's going on. You need to invest more into arranging such screens correctly, but when designed well, their UX will be superior to low-context low-information space-filled screens.
Also depends if the user really wants to/must do the task or can just give up and go do something else when the initial density is overwhelming/learning curve is too steep.
> Is it possible to cheaply canonicalize UTF-8? Or is a full parse/validation unavoidable if all you need to do is a substring search?
Even if it was, it wouldn't help you. Implementing search over unicode text properly requires locale-awareness and cannot be done by comparing codepoint sequences, even after canonicalisation.
It's the "god" part of "god king" that was the delusion, and all of the wasted effort that went into ensuring the Pharoah's resurrection and immortality after death. And yes, it's a delusion regardless of how many people believe in it.
That's all well and good until a really bad drought or a plague blows through and people start to wonder if maybe, just maybe, the inbred jackass on the golden throne doesn't control the weather after all.
Except, the Egyptian society was quite stable for 3,000 years. Can you imagine the USA existing for 3,000 years? Will there ever be another human civilization that lasts as long as the ancient Egyptian civilization?
My understanding of Egyptian chronology is that Egypt was far from stable for 3000 years. In fact, Ancient Egypt is broken up into the Old, Middle, and New Kingdom periods, separated by "intermediate periods" of a few centuries. Even then, it's generally reckoned around 2500 years from the beginning of the Old Kingdom to the incorporation by the Persian Empire.
But, even during the intermediate periods, the invaders became the pharaohs and kept the old time religion going.
Imagine back when Europe was under the thumb of the Roman Catholic church, but then it went on pretty much the same for 3,000 years. There would be some hiccups along the way, but for the normal peasant, it would pretty much be the same old same old from millennium to millennium.
Isn't the Catholic church becoming the roman Catholic church or vice versa sort of the same thing? Even with the split into Protestant it's still essentially the same core and looking back 5000 years from now it would probably be reasonable to glue it all together as the Ancient Roman-Christian period / civilization.
Imagine today there is not all these different European governments, but just the Catholic church controlling all of the different governments, which are all really branches of the Catholic Church. Their kings are determined by the Catholic church. All of them are under the Pope. Their laws have to be approved by the Catholic Church. Everyone is Catholic. Catholic bishops are more powerful than any king. Etc. And that is the way it is and continues for 3,000 years.
Building a big thing because you think it would be neat is not really a waste. It's a big thing, everyone knows it's not strictly necessary, but whether it's for the glorification of your nation or your people or your God doesn't matter so much. If people don't have gods they build big monuments to other stuff.
If we all have the delision that you can fly with the power of your mind that is still a delusion. Because one can perform an experiment and see that you in fact can’t fly with the power of your mind.
But if we all believe that you are the eastern bunny, or the coolest dude on the planet, or the twice crowned poet laurate, those are social constructs. We believe you are the eastern bunny and that makes you the eastern bunny, and that’s no longer a delusion.
I think your hang up is that you have a set of expectations you think a “god” should fulfill, and clearly the pharao did not fulfill them. And that is an objective fact. But there is no reason to expect that the ancient Egyptians shared your expectations about what a god is.
> ensuring the Pharoah's resurrection and immortality after death
That does not sound correct. I don’t think they believed that the Pharao will walk again after he died. That is what the world “resurection” would imply. Their belief was that there is some form of afterlife where you need to perform certain rituals. The pyramids and the treasures were there to aid the pharao in peforming those rituals so he can obtain a better position in the afterlife.
> I don’t think they believed that the Pharao will walk again after he died.
Don't count on it. At times, they believed everybody would.
It's complicated because concepts varied over time, and people had maybe five or eight souls (alright, soul-aspects) and there were two or three thousand years over which this changed (sometimes for ideological reasons).
> one form of the ba that comes into existence after death is corporeal—eating, drinking and copulating.
> The idea of a purely immaterial existence was so foreign to Egyptian thought ...
> the ba of the deceased is depicted in the Book of the Dead returning to the mummy and participating in life outside the tomb in non-corporeal form ...
I was under the impression that the Greeks leaned into a practice that was already well-established as part of rulership in the region. At the very least it seems we have evidence that Tutankhamun's parents were brother-sister and he appears to have had some severe abnormalities as a result:
> The results of the DNA analyses show that Tutankhamun was, beyond doubt, the child born from a first-degree brother-sister relationship between Akhenaten and Akhenaten’s sister (see Fig. 3). ... Pharaoh Tutankhamun suffered from congenital equinovarus deformity (also called ‘clubfoot’). The tomography scans of Tutankhamun’s mummy also revealed that the Pharaoh had a bone necrosis for quite a long time, which might have caused a walking disability. This was supported by the objects found next to his mummy. Did you know that 130 sticks and staves were found in its tomb?
And then we have Cleopatra the last Ptolemy and she seems normal. Even the famous inbred Charles Habsburg have relatively normal sister. Nature really plays dice sometimes.
https://acoup.blog/2023/05/26/collections-on-the-reign-of-cl... gives a good overview of Cleopatra parents as we understand them. Note too different family trees - the official one which is so inbred as to believe it isn't possible her parents could survive; and the unofficial one that recognizes nobles often sleep around and so we have no clue.
"I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party."
We like to think everyone was dumb but I'm pretty sure if those dudes could build pyramids, a lot of them also knew the Pharaoh wasn't a God even if lots of people believed, same as today with religions or cult of personality leaders.
Then there's the crown family of the UK or GB or whatever the proper calling, which claims to believe the same divine touch. You may call them ancients if you want, but they still get to make headlines.
You are missing the point here, while you might see a similar concept “divine right of kings” the lived experience was a lot different from modern times vs anything BCE.
That there similar social mechanics might be more appropriate.
"Lived experience" usually means first hand knowledge and experience, as opposed to the knowledge or information they would gain from external sources.
So, understanding this meaning, I hope it's quite obvious that lived experience is much different for people today than ancient people. Our technology is far more advanced, more information is available to us. And it is all influenced by the vast amount of information that is external to us which puts our first hand experience in different contexts.
All experience is necessarily firsthand. The word experience describes things that come in through the senses. Lived experience means something, but only if you buy into 20th century phenomenology.
re: changes. Yes things have changed. The point of the discussion is some people have asserted without argument that those differences lead to a fundamentally different concept of gods. There is no real reason to believe that that I've seen, and yet people keep pointing out that things are different as if differences in the world necessarily implies different experiences.
The Pharaoh wasn't a god, it was a ruler. I think they had the sun and other elements as "God". Kinda makes sense to praise the sun as it makes their agriculture go.
The pharaos were indeed worshipped as literal gods. Echnaton famously negated them all except for the sun and himself as the incarnation, but after his death all was restored to the normal system of polytheistic theoraty. The sungod Ra was still important, but not the most important. It was a complicated system and very different from our modern thinking.
reply