seems a bit vague to me.. not saying i know better just that i'd like more info - there a small wildcats all over europe. presumably these are older than the domestic cats? but it's well known they can be tamed from kittens, and mate with domestic cats.. why assume domestication happened once in one place?
If you could see a photographic-quality image in your mind, you could answer questions about it the way you’d answer questions about a photograph in front of you. 'what’s written on the sign?' 'how many windows?' That's photographic memory. Since that’s not real, the 'normal visualization' everyone's comparing themselves to doesn’t exist either. Yet we keep treating as credible people who assert what others experience based on not experiencing it themselves. This is epistemically bankrupt.
'If you could see a photographic-quality image in your mind, you could answer questions about it the way you’d answer questions about a photograph in front of you'
...yes. I wouldn't describe it as photograph-quality, for me it's fuzzier and lower fidelity than that, but yes.
this bugs me because what actually happened.. vi being the last survivor of a once universal interaction paradigm - is way more interesting than this unfathomably incorrect 'what a strange historical quirk' version.
Clipping the quote like that completely changes the meaning of what I said. I didn't say that.
But I stand by what I actually said: Smalltalk's OOP is indeed very novel, even for today, especially compared to C++/Java, but it's also very different from Simula, especially the early Smalltalk versions.
It's not without lineage (Ruby and IO) or peers (Erlang), but it's still an incredibly different flavor of OOP than Simula. This is not a slight, this is a compliment to Alan Kay. But to compare it to C++ is to miss the mark. C++ is from a different branch of OOP.
unfortunately this is just not true though. there was nothing abstract or disconnected from real life about MVC in smalltalk.
while we're here.. this claim that 'Smalltalk's OOP is nothing like what existed either before or after' - hmmmm
Despite decades of being told about the benefits of exercise, I had absolutely no idea what the actual time investment looked like to go from unfit to fit.
I couldn't put a number on it, and part of me assumed it must be enormous otherwise, why wouldn't anyone just say the number?
Then I discovered Couch to 5K: 30 minutes, 3 times a week. A concrete, achievable number that delivered (to me) mind blowing results.
How could it be so low? How could i not know this? How is anyone walking around ignorant (as i was) of this?
there was an 'arms race' in detergent strength throughout the 2000s. modern detergent contains more specialised enzymes, is more concentrated, and is more effective - but is (reportedly) much harder on the lifespan of garments
a really high percentage of the runners i see out i the street are forefoot striking in zero drops - clearly that's not barefoot but i'd also question whether you can call it 'short lived'
