When I encounter a version number I mostly want to know either:
- what are the major characteristics of the program
- how old is the program
Traditional software versioning helps in the first case: they bump version after a big event (new feature, rewrite, etc). Date based versioning helps in the second case. (I prefer date based versioning over traditional or semver.) Their numbering system doesn't help anyone in any case. It's just... there. A noise.
E.g. just this article title on HN: "Java 27: What's New?" doesn't tell you whether Java 27 is old or new. "Java 26.1: What's New?" would.
> I believe that's by design: applications are encouraged to upgrade often.
I'm not sure what's your thought process here. I'm not saying they should have a release every 2 years instead of every half a year, but that their numbering scheme is bad.
It makes upgrading harder. If they'd just put the date in the version field, people would know how old the software is (this applies to every software btw not just Java and Ubuntu).
Their current versioning system doesn't help anyone in any imaginale circumstance.
The numbers have become meaningless noise already. This release should've been called 26.1, then 27.0, 27.1, 28.0 and so on. Year.version. How Canonical does it with Ubuntu.
The current numbering scheme is annoying and distracting, bears no information yet is still error prone.
> If you could time-travel back to your 5y old self, would you prefer to be taught by AI tutor given the current state o/t art,
I don't know about Ello or whether is it better than human tutors yet.
> How do you see peer-to-peer contact in that scenario?
Neighbor kids gather and play as they please, which is also easier if they have more time on their hands, stay home, and overall live in each other's proximity.
> The Zig foundation had a continuing disagreement about how Bun was using Zig (their methods and the resulting code). Other projects that follow the advices of the Zig foundation more closely won't have the same problems Bun had.
Posting this could've been enough to save face.
I find the blogpost super petty, 8-10 untrue, unprovable, unrelated jabs against a person and colleague.
In practice, yes. In theory a machines can do about everything a human can, but better and cheaper.
One of the main constraint for education is available tutor time, see e.g. Bloom's 2 sigma experiment.
Obviously there are many pitfalls to overcome at the moment, but eventually machines will become better teachers than teachers, and not many parents will send their kids to public schools if the kids can learn much faster at home while being happier.
> It is. I think the professor here was being naive, but I appreciate his optimism. When I was in college (in the 90s), take home exams allowed a knowledgeable student to really shine. I’m not saying that they weren’t eminently cheatable back then—they were—but they also had the odd side-effect that, if it was a class you cared about, the test itself could be a learning experience.
I've never realized it before, but this is so true. Take home exams (or graded homeworks) allowed me to pour so much time in subjects I enjoyed, that I wouldn't have done otherwise.
I wholeheartadly believe that new generations can't be forever better in everything than the previous ones. There will come a time of stagnation or even decline.
So there is absolutely nothing wrong in decline. It's mathematically necessary. (Well, stagnation, or slow increase is also possible.)
I also don't think that the only function of the education system is to score higher and higher on tests, it has so many other functions: keep kids happy, turn kids into happy adults, lower the tensions is society, create a better world for everyone, etc.
There wouldn't be much point of scoring better in tests if it resulted in unhappy kids, unhappy adults, broken society, broken world, now would it?
Why would you care what the guy was thinking writing that comment? Do you know him? He might as well just be a stochastic parrot.
Just like with other media (movie, book, etc), the product is the end product, in this case a joke or a thought-provoking view. You shouldn't care about the creator's actual views or consider them while engaging with his comment.
Bad video, I noped out after 2 mins, it is annoying and has a very low information density. Anyone uses a yt video -> information service that is fast, free, reliable etc?
You can't choose a random player and give them unfair advantage, and argue that it makes the game more enjoyable (for any type of game). It's not what audiences desire.
It actually makes games less enjoyable, for many reasons.
> This style guide is intended primarily for English-language authors and translators, both in-house and freelance, working for the European Commission.
Even better: if you buy things that don't lose their value overtime (mostly anything apart from food, car, electronics, services) and you buy them at price, they're free. You give money for them but you receive equal amount of wealth. I repeat: you buy the thing and your wealth stays the same, doesn't grow or shrink. That's how companies can buy each others with promises.
(If you're a bank that can lend me $4.7T I think buying nvidia could benefit us both. Contact me at nick @ gmail . com)
Traditional software versioning helps in the first case: they bump version after a big event (new feature, rewrite, etc). Date based versioning helps in the second case. (I prefer date based versioning over traditional or semver.) Their numbering system doesn't help anyone in any case. It's just... there. A noise.
E.g. just this article title on HN: "Java 27: What's New?" doesn't tell you whether Java 27 is old or new. "Java 26.1: What's New?" would.