I am very happy for Scala. So many people taking the time to rant on it. Yes, you can do anything with Scala in a million different ways. So what? So can you do it in C++, Python, Rust, etc. I agree that the whole "Category Theory" libraries are way over the top, but so are libraries in Java using "factories" everywhere. Every language has its pros and cons.
I just hope they won't destroy sagas like they did to the Witcher. In other words, I don't think this is good for future content as there is a risk movies/series will follow the same scripts, underlying story plots, cultural norms, same cinematography, etc. Quality going down.
Moreover, this also means more time for ads to pay for this merger.
I don't think it is a problem with Scala 3 itself. Scala 3 brought a lot of improvements, one of them is using semantic versioning. People used to complain a log about binary compatibility between versions in 2.x. Now it's here.
I think that the slow adoption of Scala 3 is mainly due to one of its most successful projects: Apache Spark. To this day, Spark only supports Scala 2.13 although Scala 3 has been around for years now. This is both disappointing and frustrating because a lot of people were introduced to Scala thanks to Apache Spark.
Here the context is prozac FOR CHILDREN, not in general. Yet some people make a point in commenting that SSRIs are ineffective in general because they believe in some big pharma conspiracy. This is spreading misinformation. The truth is that SSRIs are modestly more effective than a placebo for approximately >> one third of the individuals << who try them. In other words, SSRIs are effective for more than 60-66% of adults. Moreover, there are a few different types of SSRIs. It takes time to find the one that fits you.
I hope robots like these will be used to help the elderly continue to live in their homes. There is a huge need to support the aging society and not enough people. I believe this would be more useful than replacing receptionists or people that have industry jobs.
Thinking out loud, CEOs have one mission, one objective: increase the ROI of shareholders through stock prices and dividends. I don't know if that is a legal obligation. But I wonder if CEOs were mandated/incentivized to also take into account social and environmental progress, maybe inequality would start to dwindle. Am I dreaming?