> If you want better interchange you should be pushing it to be included along b64 at the language level not trying to get every dev to include extra dependencies at either side of the exchange.
Oh, absolutely. JavaScript Object Notation became a defacto standard purely because js could parse it natively. Then `json` was adopted as part of the standard python libraries, within PHP, etc... Once upon a time, even stuff like base64 encoding/decoding required someone to write the code for it. Agreed, it requires pushing to get useful stuff into "batteries included" stdlibs.
We're using JavaScript Object Notation because.... Isn't the name quite telling? :-)
We have much more compact and widespread generally available formats out there with libraries for many languages. Want unbounded JSON but more compact? msgpack or bson. Want stuff more efficiently packed based on the message structure? Use protobuf.
Yes, there is a little more effort needed for the engineers there. But ya know, if the inputs and outputs of a thing are actually DOCUMENTED and the schemas are available, it's not some massive reverse engineering feat :P
(Okay, maybe you're stuck doing something in a niche environment where handy protocol/format libraries aren't available to you; MATLAB for Microcontrollers or something. But if you're there, you're probably having fun dealing with all the nuances of implementing an efficient and safe recursive unicode text serialiser/serialiser for a format line JSON anyway :P)
Also if you're going the fairly standard route of "web API over HTTP", the protocols give us way more options readily available for much more efficient streaming of binary data.
It's not "wasting time" to teach devs that there are better ways of doing stuff. base64 encoding mp3s into JSON strings strikes me as "junior dev given 2 weeks to quickly implement something without somebody there to review and suggest alternative ways of doing stuff".
This is quite a dismissive stance, and I understand the context behind it: IQ was devised to measure broad population academic performance for schoolkids and has big flaws in how it measures that.
But it still has merit as another psychological test battery you can do to determine areas in which you may struggle to process information.
My working memory sucks [compared to the standard for my age range and demographic]. I've had access to stuff like RBANS (Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status), through psychologist friends working in memory clinics. IQ tests correlate that finding, and are much more readily available (ie. free and not locked behind institutional firewalls).
Sure, the most thorough IQ tests are paywalled, but as a concept it's readily available online, though tests will yield you huge variation in scores.
We can choose not to treat IQ as a tool to compare ourselves to other people, but rather as a tool to identify our own strengths and weaknesses within different areas of the test. Ignore the single score at end of test, think on what felt hard, and performance in the score breakdown.
I would love to see more (better designed, statically rigorous) neuropsychological assessments become open and free to access. It would definitely have helped me growing up as an unknown AuDHD kid, to understand I really wasn't "a bright kid just making excuses for things I don't want to do".
Oh, absolutely. JavaScript Object Notation became a defacto standard purely because js could parse it natively. Then `json` was adopted as part of the standard python libraries, within PHP, etc... Once upon a time, even stuff like base64 encoding/decoding required someone to write the code for it. Agreed, it requires pushing to get useful stuff into "batteries included" stdlibs.
We're using JavaScript Object Notation because.... Isn't the name quite telling? :-)