What you mention is the hard part is only because the foundational blocks are free and open source (in this example). Not that marketing would become easy, it's still difficult, but not write-ffmpeg-from-scratch difficult.
Would biometrics that actually work solve the problem of the password for you?
Because I'm not sure it's a good idea to not require passwords. At the very least it's a way to make people pause and ask themselves if they really want to give admin rights to whatever program they're running.
I don't think so. If you're saying that in big projects (e.g. Linux) most developers are paid, sure, but those projects are a drop in the ocean of open source projects. I doubt very much that there are more paid than unpaid OSS developers but neither of us are bringing numbers.
Either the physics engine matter, in which case you want a deterministic engine as you said, or it doesn't like in a poker game and you don't want to spend much resources (manpower, computer cycles) into it.
Which also means an off-the-shelf deterministic engine.
> Even if it allucinates, wouldn't be worse than the physics bugs that are so common in games.
I don't know about that. Physic bugs are common, but you can prioritize and fix the worst (gamebreaking) ones. If you have a blackbox model, it becomes much harder to do that.
I know Java programmers use static-method classes, which are just like modules in newer languages. Which just further illustrates the point. It's a hack on top of a language that requires everything to be defined inside of a class. That layer of abstraction on top of things that could be much simpler kills understanding. It massively complicates answering the question "What even is a class?" for a learner. I also realize C++ has simple structs, and classes can be avoided entirely, but that's definitely not the way the language is taught.
Maybe I needed to "git gud", but learning Lisp enabled a career building valuable products currently in production. Java and C# were a roadblock on the way to my current productivity.
I didn't expect that much negativity regarding my comment, I never implied you need to "git gud".
I'm happy in my Clojure job and I would rather not work with OO languages, and that's definitely not how they're taught, but if/when you're forced to use them you can choose not to follow the traditional way and instead write them in a more functional/data oriented way.
Almost all of the code examples in the book are in JavaScript (not Java) though a significant feature of Sharvit's approach is that it decouples Data Oriented Programming from any specific language. As a Clojure geek, I highly recommend the book as the way to achieve some of Clojure's core virtues in other languages.
Sorry for going off-topic, but why is this comment being downvoted?
The comment provides an alternative view on things and even links to a nice book. One may not agree with the perspective, but that's no reason to downvote.
Perhaps it's the user interface (a special upvoting wand would be most welcome for those of us whose fingers are too fat). Or have we reached the stage where script kiddies deploy downvoting bots if they didn't like a comment in another thread?
> The client, accessing remote repos, is wildly insecure, by design
Who's the best kid in the block regarding third-party extensions security?
There's really not much standing in front of a supply-chain attack for my editor of choice, emacs. Most people use a community extensions aggregator that also directly fetches from git repositories. The only slim advantage we have is that I'm sure a much higher % of emacs users would actually look into the source code of the extensions they pull.
If you want to be cautious, I have somewhat higher confidence in the versions of Emacs packages published on the Debian repositories[1] than the ones on ELPA/MELPA.
The downside is that not every package is packaged for Debian, and the versions are a bit stale.
From your quotes, there seems to be an important difference: in the first quote they talk about "ideal human leg bones" and in the second one about a "typical human femur".
I'm certain that an elite sprinter blessed in genetics has leg bones significantly stronger than the average human. Bones also get stronger from repetitive exercise.
I would guess there also may be a difference between the two cases in that the force needed to break a leg wasn’t measured by compressing it, but by exerting force perpendicular to its length.
Even if it isn’t, there are so many ways to measure breaking strength that it’s unlikely the two cases are perfectly comparable.
This was my assumption. The original article implies parallel force, which I imagine has far higher limit than perpendicular. Eg trying to chop a 1x4 in half long ways probably takes quite a bit of force(and a touch of stupidity).
