For me, C is perfect and just works and C++ doesnt. That being said, both their std libs are a big mess. It's absolutely horrible. The problem is the macro preprocessor. It's a horrible feature that should not have existed.
C is not perfect. It's closer to assembly, but you can't do anything useful without reinventing most things that is already done in C++.
C++ STD lib is not a big mess. At least, I am using it for decades. I don't know if you really used it because those who are against STD doesn't understand the point of abstractions and it's utility. They always tend to cite why would I use vector when I can create a "simple" linked list myself with pointers.
Facebook again? Why is there always negative news about facebook? What about google & twitter? They do the exact same evil stuff. I swear, at this point it seems like facebook is being targetted by some propaganda group. Not saying facebook is good, but this is suspicious.
As for the "whistleblower"... she told nothing, absolutely nothing. Everything she told was already known. It was like a show for the media.
Also, "showing that whenever there was a conflict between the interests of the company and the public good, the social media giant would choose its own interests"
That's good. That's how it should be. What shouldnt be is when u use your company to hurt the public. And in my opinion, that is what all these giant companies do. These companies decide which opinions are right and which are wrong. That is wrong. It's playing dictator. It's not their job. It's mis-use of power.
Whether FB wants to show ads for Trump or Biden, it shouldnt matter. These companies should not be allowed to decide which information you should be allowed to see and which not. If they do, which they do, it's called interference aka. meddling with elections aka. bias'd system.
I hope fb, google, twitter disappear one day. The world would be better off.
You're missing the point, his point is that alot of science is unscientific. He explains that the main problem is that either the study is full of gaps, aka. unanswered questions. Or either it's a good study, but then continue to make conclusions about an entire subject while their data only represents a part of the subject. And this happens all the time, over and over again. It happens at google, IBM or any other research company. Science is hard! and the people working at these companies are just people like any other people. People like to rush things or claim that they have proven something.. because.. fame, money, recognition, etc etc..
Did Firefox implement a nice button for you to turn it on? Did they sell the ads to the advertisers? Did they take a cut of the money? Did they trick you into thinking it was a good idea?
Google and apple are not securing your data. Any app on your phone that uses the internet already talks to an external API. And they can sell your data to anyone at any time without google/apple ever knowing about it. And that's normal. https doesnt really do much to make your data secure. But google/apple arent even needed to force apps to use https. Your phone can just say it's required by default. Google/apple are just pretending they do something for you, it's just all about control, so they can have all the profit. It's basically the same as the government saying they do not allow any other foodstores other than storeX. Because other stores might sell you food that's poisoned or expired. So to protect u, we dont allow any other stores. And storeX can just decide what the price is, what food you're allowed to buy, etc etc. It's shit. You dont want this.
i personally believe it's do-able. But it's not going to happen using machine learning and certainly not with quantum computers. I think u just need plain old code. It's just really complex to understand how a brain works. I mean, words, actions, experiences and concepts have to all work together. Let alone emotions, perception of others, projecting the future and a value system. But even that said, im sure it's do-able.
i hope one day someone hacks google and puts all their servers offline and puts a text saying: this service is not inline with our guidelines. Even if it's for 1 day, just to give them a small taste of their own non-sense. If you buy something, it should be yours to control. If i buy a plate, you dont get to decide what food i eat. The phone space is currently completely controlled by 2 giants... it's sad.
The problem isnt Brexit, it's how the EU handles it. There's literally no reason to suspend those domains, just block them from extending it and creating new ones. Everyone happy. but.. nope... Let's just force shutdown these websites, just so we can tell other countries, see, this is what happens when u leave the EU. The EU is so pathetic.
A big part of the justification for Brexit is because the EU is a crap bureaucracy that does arbitrary, self-harming and utterly unnecessary stuff like this all the time. It's totally in character for them to do this, which simply indicates why Brexit is a good idea.
> A big part of the justification for Brexit is because the EU is a crap bureaucracy that does arbitrary, self-harming and utterly unnecessary stuff like this all the time.
I haven't seen anything of the sort as a reason for brexit. I have seen loads of broken promises that were made around the referendum. Plus the longstanding tradion (for loads of EU countries) to blame everything on the EU. Combined with UK media making stuff up about the EU (bendy bananas). There's been so much misinformation (lies) that the EU has a 10+ page list of incorrect UK "news"articles. I've also seen a lot of misinformation regarding foreigners, whereby any foreigner is put into the "asylum seeker" group. There's even some cartoons about that; that they a) take all the jobs b) never pay taxes (despite taking all the jobs) c) do not work
>Combined with UK media making stuff up about the EU (bendy bananas).
Not just the media but the Prime Minister himself. He even gave a speech where he admitted to making up a story about the EU wanting to ban prawn cocktail crisps.
Of course, he did also get fired from his job as a journalist for blatantly lying.
But where have you looked? To pick just one example, Brexit the Movie talked about the low quality of EU bureaucracy quite a bit.
The EU's old list of "myths" is a bit of a joke BTW. A lot of the so-called myth debunkings started with an admission that the claim is indeed true, but here's why it's actually OK. It's more a list of responses than myths. For instance the "myth" that they were funding trapeze artists in Africa was explained with words to the effect of, yes we do this, but it's totally cool so what's the problem? I've noticed hardly anyone who quotes the existence of that site seems to have actually read any of it. I think they took it down at some point - it was as embarrassing to the EU as the British press, really. Kind of a hall of shame of stupid stuff the press had picked up on over the years combined with a very weak set of justifications, often of the form of "we decided to do this so that makes it right".
Bendy bananas is a good example of that by the way. You claim the press made it up. You're lying, perhaps without realising it. Commission regulation 2257/94 specifies different classes for fruit based on, amongst other things, straightness. Read about it here:
This is supposedly to make trade easier. Perhaps it does, although why the EU needs to define this vs just supermarkets and other bulk purchasers who care about banana straightness is very unclear. The debate about bendy bananas was never about whether the rules existed at all, but rather whether they represented a reasonable deployment of trans-national bureaucracy.
Your post is symptomatic of a more general problem: people who are very pro EU tend to believe they are better informed than they actually are, and tend to believe people who disagree with them about the value of the EU are just brainwashed idiots who don't know the facts. But when this has been tested rigorously e.g. in polls or studies, it's always been that anti-EU people have a (slightly) better grip on the facts.
The ccTLDs are maintained by the respective entities that own them. This has nothing to do with Internet being supranational, the DNS simply does not reflect that. In fact, it had been controlled via ICANN by the US for the longest time:
https://newrepublic.com/article/117037/us-gives-iana-and-dns...
Blocking renewals has the same ultimate result, just with added steps and a less clean process (because right now everyone whose domain has been suspended is FORCED to resolve it within the next 3 months, which is preferable to domains just randomly vanishing over the upcoming years as they expire).
I'm getting kinda sick of the media putting more & more non-sense in our heads instead of actual news. This is pure fantasy. They can't build nuclear reactors on Mars! The only reason why they write this article is because the topic "Mars" generates large amounts of views. News shouldn't be a bussiness :(
They don't have to build it on Mars. A kilowatt scale nuclear reactor is small and also safer and more portable. The Russians have already sent nuclear powered satellites into space.
Genuine question: If it's possible to use mini nuclear reactors in satellites then why they just can't land that thing somehow on Mars (like they did with Curiosity) and use it on planet surface to power lab?
Thermoisotopic generators generally rely on plutonium, which is in very low supply, and generate only about 100-200We output AFAIU.
That's enough for electronics and comms on a deep-space mission, but doesn't offer a whole lot of surplus power for planetary activity. Among the reasons that lander craft are so slow-moving (they basically manage a slow crawl) is power demands, though other factors, including navigation and stress, are considerations.
Thermoisotopic generators are a bad idea for general power generation for a colony for other reasons (they're low power, you need a lot of them), but it's not a problem that they're in low supply.
That's just because we haven't been making more plutonium recently, because we haven't needed it. We could simply make more.
That's a trivial cost when we're talking about sending things to Mars. The Curiosity rover has around 5kg of Pu-238. NASA estimates that restarting production will cost $6M/kg[1]. The total cost of the MSL program is 2.5 billion[2]. That's $30 million out of 2.5 billion, or 1.2%.
NASA has also been buying Pu-238 from the Russians at around $1.5 million/kg[3], which would be $7.5 million for Curiosity, or 0.3% of the cost of the program.
I'm interested in deep-space exploration (but am no expert), and as far as I can tell the reason the US is running out of Pu-238 has absolutely nothing to do with cost.
It's been happening because only NASA has really wanted this, but producing it has been the purview of the military or the DOE.
So the issue has been stuck in some bureaucratic nightmare for decades, the only people allowed to produce Pu-238 didn't need it, and NASA couldn't simply spend a crapload of money to pay another agency or branch of the government to restart production due to the way money politics works, even though it was an overall good investment.
So rather than simply restart production at a trivial cost compared to what NASA otherwise spends, it's been easier to buy it from Russia.
As [1] shows there's now a real possibility that Pu-238 will run out, so the US has restarted production.
The cost wouldn't be trivial for powering a mars colony.
I'm sure the demand for a colony would scale pretty fast to 100kW or more. Now we are talking about Billions.
So I think that your original point that cost for Pu-238 is not an issue for a colony is wrong.
Small reactors are a much better option as a single ton of fuel could supply a colony with a few MW for decades. You just have to make sure that the largest part is less than 37 tons so it can be transported with a Long March 9.
My original point was that dredmorbius's comment that Pu-238 is in low supply wasn't referencing some law of nature, but a political decision that could be changed.
I said they were a "bad idea for general power generation", so I'm not suggesting that they be used to power a Mars colony, but rather that the reasons not to do so don't include Pu-238 being in low supply.
We also have a low supply of rockets & other infrastructure to colonize Mars, but we can simply decide to make them.
Still, I think any extrapolation of current numbers to say that Pu-238 would be categorically unsuitable for such a purpose is probably premature. Nobody's tried to produce it on a truly industrial scale, which would bring costs down. It has a half-life of around 90 years degrading at 1%/year, so once you produce it it'll power the colony for a long time.
It's also around 6% efficient at generating electricity[1], but 100% efficient at generating heat, which is a huge part of energy requirements on Mars when it comes to human habitation. The Curiosity rover generates 120W of electricity but 2000W of heat.
There are laws of nature involved. But also of men, nations, and war.
Pu-238 isn't found in nature, but has to be synthesized. The precursor material, U-238 is the most abundant form of Uranium, which is convenient. It's also produce via neptunium-237.
The real complication is that the nuclear synthesis processes are also those used for nuclear weapons production, which makes for some serious complications.
Those complications only apply to nations that don't have a permanent seat on the UN security council. There are no treaty obligations preventing the US or Russia from making Pu-238.
Mini reactors are useless on Mars. The power they generate is waaay to low compared to the money that is needed to bring them there. Also putting nuclear reactors on sattelites almost never happens and is VERY DANGEROUS. It's what the Soviet Union did in the 70s-90s. The last sattelite launched with a nuclear reactor was in 1988.
You have to be pretty insane to launch large amounts of nuclear material from earth in a rocket that can randomly explode in our atmosphere.
