I've been working with Django since version 0.96. Still a lot of love for it, but for the last several years it's not my default for new projects though. The Django codebase is far from what can be called modern. As an experiment, it's easy to open up some Django core modules side by side with other frameworks that were mentioned (FastAPI for one) and to see that the code looks so different to the point where a programmer with not a lot of experience with Python might think those are different languages altogether.
Much of Django's core has not changed in a very long time, so there would be no type annotations and other modern Python constructs.
FastAPI, pydantic, uvicorn, httpx would be in my list to answer OPs question.
> the code looks so different to the point where a programmer with not a lot of experience with Python might think those are different languages altogether
Some of us actually prefer the "old" style of Python. Type annotations are too "Java-ish" for me, I hate source code that declares a function with signature takes more than half of the screen space, I hate making http requests with three layers of nested `async with`. If you are into static typing or RAII why not choose a real deal language instead.
I have heard this recycled notion about carbs being scarce many times, but in this context it makes little sense. If fat adaptation is so efficient at converting food to energy and there is more fat around than carbs, why would the craving for carbs evolve even? I have also done keto a couple times and my experience is the same — in a month I just can’t stand anymore meat and bacon and going back to a balanced diet feels very good. I also can‘t stuff myself with carbs and start seeking both protein rich foods and fatty. Would question the whole „carbs where scarce, so we evolved to overfeed on them“ dogma. Why would fruits be more scarce for a non predator (as where human ancestors), than meat? It feels like a whole lot is missing in the story.
Carbs and protein are water soluble while fats are lipid soluble, and your cells preferentially burn water soluble molecules before lipid soluble. There can be tons of energy in the form of fat available, but to access it you will first burn up your available protein. This protein is necessary for things like cellular repair, muscle growth, etc. You need to sacrifice this to access your energy stored in fat - an acceptable tradeoff when you're freezing in the middle of winter, but certainly suboptimal. Carbs on the other hand will burn preferentially before proteins, so you can have your cake and eat it too. Carbs can't be stored for very long, but they can be readily converted to fats for storage.
In the past, it wasn't so much that carbs were rare as calories in general were rare, and carbs were merely the most desirable. If you're an athletic hunter gatherer, you want as many carbs as possible for fuel so you don't have to switch over to your small reserve of fat and give up your proteins along the way. On the other hand in the modern day it's easy to get more carbs than we can burn in a short period of time so we have a lot of excess calories that get added to our emergency supply. Since we actually have to go through a good bit of effort to starve in the modern world, we never switch over to our emergency supply and thus it never depletes (ie we get and stay fat).
Of course you crave carbs after eating mostly proteins and fat - as far as your caveman brain is concerned, you are starving and need real food. It's just an unfortunate reality of our modern civilization that most of us don't have the metabolism to support a caveman's diet.
> in a month I just can’t stand anymore meat and bacon and going back to a balanced diet feels very good.
90% of curries are keto friendly, Thai food that doesn't involve noodles or rice, a-ok, tons of Chinese dishes are also 100% keto!
Going on any sort of restricted diet is going to involve learning how to improve your cooking game, but after years of Keto I can put together meals for large groups of people that are 100% keto and people won't even notice, and that is including the hazelnut cookies with chocolate ganache for dessert!
> Would question the whole „carbs where scarce, so we evolved to overfeed on them“ dogma
I agree historical evidence may be lacking, but a large percent of the population[1] do overfeed on carbs and a mix of carbs+fat, in a way that is has dramatic health consequences.
The way I always like to put it is, between a stuffed baked potato, and a steak, what will people at more calories of when given a chance? I know for me it is the potatoes, I can easily go through 2 entire potatoes, stuffed with sour cream, chive, shrimp, and cheese. (and I know the shrimp sounds super weird in there, but trust me, try it, it is amazing!)
That is 800 calories, and after that I'm going to wait 15 minutes and resume the rest of my dinner for yet more calories!
But if I start with 8oz of steak and some well prepared kale, well, I'm done for the night. ~700 calories total for the entire meal, rather than starting with 800 and working my way up from there!
The thing that changed my mind was realizing that skipping the bread at dinner didn't make me any less full.
[1] Such unhealthy habits are spreading world wide!
Thai food and often involve palm sugar in what you’d consider savory dishes. And depending on the brand of coconut milk that’s used you could be nabbing extra carbs there too. So even without noodles and rice you may be sneakily pushing up against your daily carb limit and not realize it.
Calorie counting is illuminating. I've been able to eat 4000 kcal of mostly carbs in one sitting and perhaps up to 7000 kcal in one day, and I need some effort to eat 2000 kcal of meat/fat in one sitting (about 1kg of steak).
In general I tend to overeat carbs and go above my daily calorie intake if I were to eat until satiety, whereas I tend to eat at or under my TDEE of meat/fat and have to sometimes force myself to reach my daily requirements.
How much of the carb overfeeding is marketing and conditioning though (and mostly a US-centric phenomenon)? Any caloric excess is bad, nothing special about carbs. Demonizing one particular nutrient seems like a silver bullet and I could also enjoy 50 different ways to make eggs and ham and 50 varieties of brie and keto bread, but something felt amiss. That said, still want to try going 100% vegan someday.
> Why would fruits be more scarce for a non predator (as where human ancestors), than meat?
Seasons change?
Meat is available year-round but can be dangerous to acquire and prepare safely.
Fruits/veggies are easy but seasonal food sources that store poorly, and with vast competition.
Grains and tubers are difficult to transport, spoil, and are of limited supply determined by the growing season (especially without agriculture).
Our hunt & gather ancestors followed the seasons far closer than farmers. At least on gut check, it seems fat adaptation would be strongly selected for as well as a strong taste for carbs as available
Also not to forget that modern fruits and vegetables are nothing like the ones we've spent much of our evolution with. I would guess honey would have been the most sugary thing available, and still guarded by a swarm of angry bees.
Was/is there that much of seasonal variety in the African regions, where humans evolved mostly? And why should we stop at humans and not go back even further?
Maybe, in essence, the bacteria that we host to help break down carbs start producing something that makes us crave/prefer carbs?
It seems like the bacteria would, in essence, be self interested and might have developed their own evolutionary mechanism to promote the supply of their food source?
In other words, if we, essentially, keep internal bacteria colonies to help break down specific types of food, those colonies may encourage consumption of their specialized food source?
We may also, symbiotically, encourage the preservation/maintenance of internal processing capability?
On the contrary, there are orders of magnitude less megafauna than plankton. And there’s a diminishing range in between. It’s easier to get berries for dinner, than boar. Of course, things could be the opposite during Ice Ages, but that’s just a glimpse in geological time, not convinced that metabolism would change entirely during that period.
A trip to the woods would with a high likelihood show that there are more berries around than berry eating boars. But my point is not that there is no competition for resources, and not that there always was an abundance of everything, but that the carb scarceness theory is not a complete explanation. Because food in general was scarce, and we either should have the same cravings for other nutrients or the „carb-stuffing“ notion is a bit overused.
Might be that fat was as scarce as carbs prehistorically. Have you ever eaten wild game? They are drastically leaner than farm animals. I imagine they were even leaner back when there were more wild creatures competing for the same food supply.
It's not an accident that our palate has evolved to reward us for finding salts, fats, and sugars.
Nor fat, nor carbs are an essential nutritional component. The body can not synthesize certain amino acids, but it can convert protein to both fat and carbohydrates by means of gluconeogenesis. If anything, we should have cravings for sources of protein, not sugars. One could argue that sugars provide the burst of energy for the metabolic pathway that could be make it or break it in cases where that burst gives an advantage. This, and not the scarceness argument, which seems just thin to me, although mainstream opinion.
The very rough gist is that there is historical evidence of pre agrarian humans starving to death with stomachs full of lean meat. In a nomadic lifestyle where they chase down prey protein costs too much energy to digest and convert into usable energy.
Fat is an essential nutritional component. As an example, cholesterol is necessary to produce hormones such as testosterone, estrogen and cortisol. Thankfully, it's pretty much impossible to avoid if you eat meat.
Carbs are not essential. You can live on zero total grams of carbs.
Also gluconeogenesis only converts proteins to glucose, not fat, at least not directly.
Greg Egan is definitely in the list of authors with the most radically hard science fiction ideas, even more extravagant than those I found in Alfred Bester books.
Technologies exist that give quantitative biomechanical analysis and "before" and "after" comparison, for example when fitting an orthesis or prosthesis.
The only thing wrong with sugar is overeating it to the point of ruining one's macro proportions and going into caloric surplus. Just saying that "sugar is unhealthy" is not true from a dietary perspective. A better statement would be "too much sugar is unhealthy".
Sugar and carbohydrates can severely negatively impact people, even in small amounts.
"[INSERT FOOD] for some people is unhealthy at any amount" is what should be always said. People then have to determine what those foods and level of foods are, it could be accumulative as well - where too much of a few different foods may be too irritating to your system.
Cheese has a high tyrosine content and turkey -- tryptophan. Should one always mention that those foods could cause adverse effects for people who are sensitive to those amino-acids? I think that's a bit over the top, like saying that walking is healthy, but not forgetting to mention, that it is not, for people with severe arthritis. That seems like a truism to me and if one has those type of ailments, they most likely know about it or should seek medical advice.
Do we ideally want an educated, self-aware population who have a better chance of self-regulating - or the opposite? Similarly do we want discourse to be more lazy and simplified or to be more detailed When is it coddling, when is it laziness?
True and the biggest cause of that is bread, pasta and other complex carbs. You can't drink enough orange juice to get the same amount of sugar as a bowl of pasta without feeling sick.
I seldom eat too much of anything, but bread makes me glee with happiness. I don’t think I’d like to live in a world without bread. I love how it smells, I love how it tastes, I love how satisfied I feel after eating freshly baked bread.
Probably not the answer you’re expecting but damn I love avocado toast, pizza, naan, french toast, burger, croissants and any form of bread.
I don’t care if I die a few years early, I love bread.
I started with my eyes closed and heard nothing but noise. With eyes open I caught a glimpse of the brainstorm label and started to hear that and only that. No green needle, as much as I tried to make it flip, it did not.
Amazon (likely after many years of negotiations) got itself a better deal than individual developers? This looks to me like complaining that corporations can aquire goods and services in bulk cheaper than would be for a single person to get in a generic supermarket. I'm all for equality, but this looks like a good precedent that might open more options eventually. What is the backlash here against?
It’s not a tax, it’s like a rent. They built and run the ecosystem, you don’t have to be part of it if you don’t like it, it’s completely voluntary, unlike a tax.
It’s rent in the sense of rent seeking. You control an asset and let others pay for using it, if they want to. Rent seeking is not a very good thing but it’s a minuscule part of Apple’s business model. I also can’t see how a small developer can find it unfair, 30% for access to the best mobile ecosystem seems a pretty good deal to me, and I’m a mobile developer. I can agree that it seems expensive to Amazon or Spotify though.
I don't see it as tax or rent, but a business partnership with a revenue sharing model. Amazon has a unique deal, Google has a unique deal to bring search in Safari, Microsoft has a unique deal. Apple can't sign unique deals with all developers so this is a fair and scalable way to create business deals using APIs. It isn't perfect, but it works. If it didn't, it wouldn't be so successful.
Finite lifespan for an organism stems from the necessity to adapt to changes in the environment, thus -- generations with a cycle of life and death. Brains allow to adapt without physically having to upgrade to next gen. It seems logical that if or when we get to have updatable wetware (in software or somehow else, the options are open), the concept of individual immortality will make sense with how the universe works.
The computers would still stop working eventually; the universe as we know it also has a finite lifespan, and a machine will always require some amount of energy to function.
Well, there is a notion that there is a Darwinian evolution of the Cosmos (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0205119.pdf), and one might argue that we can't be sure about the future of the universe (especially adding the unknowns regarding multiverse and that whole line of thought) and what future technology might bring, regarding even, let's be optimistic, potential changes to the fabric of timespace itself. Given the non-zero chance of a technological singularity happening even in our lifespan.
ps passwords are in 1password so to get to it I need to setup iCloud.
The ex-girlfriend physically attacked me and tried to lock me down in the flat by stealing the key. I got the key at the cost of dropping my MacBook Pro, shattering the screen. The 11" MacBook is hers (she left it behind in a hurry) with an account I created for myself just in case from which I am writing now.
I can't log in to her acc as it is an admin account. Sorry for the drama but HN is about the only social network I can login to now and get some support/advice.
PS. Got an idea, while writing the comment, that could work.
PPS. I am Russian and was born and live in Moscow, crazy ex is Russian too, so that might explain some things.
Much of Django's core has not changed in a very long time, so there would be no type annotations and other modern Python constructs.
FastAPI, pydantic, uvicorn, httpx would be in my list to answer OPs question.