It's a fallacy to say that this can beat hand-optimized C++. If you were to write the equivalent code in hand-optimized C++ you could in 99% get at least a small speedup if not a larger one.
It's as if you are comparing singlethread C++ with multithreaded burst C# code?
We just have to be careful so that "the cure doesn't become deadlier than the disease": in case some magnetic particles are left in it could cause greater issues perhaps than plastic. We can't just assume that "yeah don't worry bro the magnets will surely remove all magnetic particles".
To be honest if you know C#, Java or ObjectiveC you already know the core 90% of C++.
The main thing left is understanding pointers vs references vs stack vs heap allocation (egthe instance.x vs instance->x difference) because C++ has those explicitly different pointer vs non-pointer intances of "instance", while C# or Java hide that difference (so if you know C# you can slightly think of it as struct vs class in C# difference since struct is copy-by-value while class is always a reference (a pointer).
Moving away from objects doesn't make sense: objects are perfectly fine and usable. It all depends on the context. Anyone who says "don't use objects" is a religous zaelot who does't see the forest for the trees anymore.
For certain extreme performance cases objects can be bad, but in ~95%+ of cases objects are perfectly fine.
We are again starting to enter "it all depends on the context" territory.
IMO C++ got some very bad rep for no reason at all: it got mythologized into a "very difficult arcane language that people makes meme about".
So because of this people think C++ is some boogey man, while it's really not.
Unless you are making life-critical software like avionics it honestly isn't much more difficult than C# or Java.
Ironicaly you already understand the difference between pointer and non-pointer since you know instinctively that an "int" type is will get fully copied while in Java a class object is a reference (pointer). C++ just makes this even more explicity since YOU can decide if a class is a copy-by-value or a reference on the fly (assuming the class doesn't have complex sub-fields inside of it that require their own complex copy-by-value vs reference rules).
Also due to C++ being mythologized as an "super difficult language" you get some extra XP on resumes if you state that you know it.
Due to the complexity of the real world we can't even predict weather for 2 days in advance and you they think they can predict the world...
The sad part is that they will then use this model and its result to create policies not knowing that you can never rely on such a "copy" because even the smallest difference will create an insane amount of divergence even 1 day down the line of future simulation let alone years...
I remember cleary that once I touched a car in GTA (can't remember which) the car visibly "fallen" to the road for a very small amount: so it was clear it was driving on tracks and was not properly physics simulated.
> In Europe, the UK’s largest retailer, Tesco, launched more than 30 new own-brand plant-based products, as its CEO wrote that the UK should eat “less meat and dairy.”
"its CEO wrote that the UK should eat “less meat and dairy."
I wonder when incentive he could have for writting such a thing. Surely it cannot be a financial one?
You belive that he is forcing himself to "be productive" and to "work so much".
What you have missed is that he loves what he does.
It's not that "he is so disciplined": it's that he lives for this kind of things that is why he can do so much things and in such "extreme" manner.
But only an outside observer would mark these as "extreme".
You say "to just let go": the mistake on your end here is that you are projecting your own disinterest in the things he does on him.
He is not like you, and I'm not saying that you should be like him.
It's just that that is his natural tendency. Yours is different.
So he doesn't need to "let go" because he is not suffering: he is most likely enjoying his life much more that you are yours since he lives, breathes and makes money of his hobby.
You can easily demolish the entire "atheism is rational" argument very quickly:
An atheist claims "there is no God" or that eg "there is no Christian God".
But the atheist made a fatal mistake here: he mistook absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
This is such a grade school mistake that it kinda makes every atheist look stupid.
If anything religion is more rational than atheism because a relgious persons "belives" and a belief has a less severe requirement to be logicaly sound than atheism (since a belief is subjective).
That is because if you claim "there is no God" the burden of proof is on you to present the evidence, and yet no atheist has any evidence for that.
So in the end neither theists nor atheists have any solid proof for or against it.
But since belief is subjective it has less epistemological requirements than an atheist claiming "there is no God".
> It's already so hard to convince that food grown in clean and sterilized nutrient medium is far better than the romantic soil everyone is clinging to;
You are delusional if you belive this.
You actually think that putting some vitamins, minerals etc.. in your hydropnic system is enough to immitate the insanely complex environement of real soil?
You are the example of peak arrogance: you think you can take a few things here and there and that you will be able to make the "perfect food".
The food you will grow like this will lack nutrients and will be sub-par for human consumption.
There are people who:
1) Know that they don't know many things.
2) Don't know that they don't know many things.
You are category #2.
Your delusion is that you think you can immate the insanely delicate and complicated interdependencies in soil just by putting some stuff in water.
You can eat as much of your food as you like, if you eat shit food that is your problem.
The issue I have with people like you is that you will be forcing your stuff down my throat sooner or later, even indirectly since your obviously campaign against soil grown foods: people like you will put legit farmers out of business and then people like me will have severely limited access to real food: just because you arrogantly belive you can mix a few minerals and vitamins and that that will produce legit food.
You are a prime example of someone who will do great harm out of your own deluded belief in "the greater good".
In reality you are absolutely clueless when it comes to understanding the complexity of nature: nothing works in isolation in nature, but you think it does.
And what if the other guy is wrong and he is attacking me and trying to get me fired regardless of the fact that he is wrong?
You fail to understand that these people cannot be reasoned with.
It doesn't matter if you are wrong or not: those people cannot be reasoned with so you do not really have a choice but to go on the offense regardless of the means you use.
Those people want you gone, fired. You will either do something about that in any way you can or you will lose your income.
There is no "rational" way fighting against someone like that. The person who is attacking already is irattational. Thus neither logic, nor common sense nor good will counter arguments will help you.
That person is like a rabid dog, once it sees you backing down it will only go in for the kill.
Stop thinking that you can "logic" or "talk" your way out.
An offense from your end, regardless if its rational or irrational is your only way of keeping your job.
Would you try to reason your way out when attacked by a mentally ill person? Obviously not, you'd know that there is no way of reasoning with someone whose world view is so warped and who is full of irrational hatred for someone who hasn't directly harmed him.
Stop thinking about logic and arguments, they will be your doom.
Going on a severe counterattack against them is your only option. The bully will only attack you harder if he sees you backing down.
But show the bully that you will punch back and he will lose his power. This might sound like a cliche but people severely underestimate the wisdom of this statement.
Also note that there is no "moral high ground" here.
The person who is trying to make a stranger jobless obviously doesn't care if you or your family will starve.
So the cancel culture proponent already ignored any an all morals since he obviously doesn't know your life situtation and is trying to cancel you anyway.
So really the only "moral" thing to do here is to destroy them back.
This is the most important part that needs to be understood:
Don’t back down. Don’t apologize. Don’t make clarifications, and don’t try to appease the mob. All of these will only be taken as concessions, and embolden the mob to demand more.
Also forgot to add, as he also writes:
"Mock them mercilessly". This is the keypoint also.
Backing down never works, you have to mock them and attack them back.
The hyperbole is not absurd and is there for a reason: it is meant to show people the arrogance of scientists and their inability to comprehend that messing with complex systems has unpredictable consequences that cannot be studied.
You can go through this channel if you are interested, search for "hair", there are before/afters:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoR7CHkMETs3ByOv74OAbFw