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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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.
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.
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.
While no app should ever leak data, I'm skeptical of a lot of those "concerns". Effort / effect seems to be in a non-practical area to justify even an attempt at data-snooping.
In general reading infosec news it might seem that everything these days is so insecure and vulnerable to the point where "if you have something valuable to anyone else they'll get it eventually" might seem to be mostly true.
On the other hand in real news on the individual level of hacks (not speaking of viruses and the like here) there's almost never anything apart from the occasional "dumb" hack with nothing more sophisticated than a guessed or fished password for instance, without any further effort giving the hacker access to a trough of invaluable data.
I don't understand this discrepancy, can someone with the know in the security industry say if anyone without "top secret" data or not being a VIP character even bother about the "concerns" raised in most instances, apart from following basic security practices, i.e. updating often, using strong passwords, not entering data to phishing sites?
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.