Webkit only has 10k LOC specific to WebAssembly because like every other browser it reuses the javascript JIT. That's an incredibly tiny part of the entire browser.
In my opinion copyright extensions are fine. The problem is that they apply to everyone universally. If disney still makes money off of mickey mouse then let them but please don't hurt everyone else along the way.
It's about the attention span. If the animation or action happens within 100ms then it's percieved as very fast and has almost no negative effect on attention. If the action takes 1 second then it is merely percieved as fast but very noticeable. If an action takes more than roughly 3 seconds it's percieved as slow and you might lose the attention of your user.
Just because you are below the threshold of 100ms doesn't mean that reducing it more isn't beneficial. It's just that you have alread captured the full attention of your users.
>Animals in animal factory farming can be feeded with things that neither humans nor plants can/would accept directly.
So can non-factory animal farms. I don't see how factory farming is better in this aspect than other types of animal farms.
There is a middle ground between no animal farming and factory farming.
>Animal factory farming by-products also are needed to support agriculture. Using human faeces at large scale to fertilize the spoil is not so good idea as using horse, goat, cow or pig faeces (Because human faeces carry more types of human transmisible parasites and more often than faeces in non-human animals).
Factory farming has the unfortunate sideeffect of producing too much fertiliser of the wrong kind. The farms have trouble getting rid of their excess waste.
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/the-dangers-of-usi...
>It is not uncommon that a factory farm will produce more waste than can be absorbed into the soil surrounding the facility.
Because there is such an excess of excrement, it is often over-applied to fields and the nutrients that cannot be absorbed by the soil run off into local waterways.
But why is it adding their patent grant which only protects facebook to non facebook projects like atom? Should every company add their own company patent grant? Why not simply add a general patent grant that protects all users and companies?
Facebook only cares about facebook in the license. We can't say that facebook is doing it for the benefit of the project itself. The more projects that have the license the more protected facebook is while everyone else is left out.
If we were to believe that it is an altruistic endeavor that will result into a "world without patents" then in fact it would be a world without patents... but only for facebook.
I have nothing against patent grants with the condition of not suing for patent infringement but they shouldn't only apply to one specific company. The apache software license and many others have already solved this problem. There is no need for a facebook only solution.
My issue is with people pretending that facebook is doing everything right when they are doing everything wrong.
If by political correctness you mean the basic human rights of the constitution
Of course we could add an exception to the constitution that excludes lab grown children. Well, unfortunately gene manipulation is eugenics unless you are willing to support your "defects" until they die of old age plus their offspring but then china is probably going to win again because they are disposing their defective subjects as soon as they notice the defect.
It doesn't take much imagination to think of this scenario. Creating artifical super children that grow up inside a lab and get killed off when convenient is the most common staple in scifi books and movies involving gene editing.
What's more important? Basic human rights for all humans or competitiveness?
>"Is there anything I could get paid to do that a machine couldn't do?".
Work for free or even pay for the privilege of working. See some short distance truck drivers working 20 hours a day making losses on some weeks after paying for their truck lease and other costs that were externalised from the employer to the employee. You can't exploit a robot but you can exploit a human.
Unfortunately in my experience I don't know what type of x I'm supposed pass into to. I either have to guess what x is out of a infinite search space or I have to look at the implementation but unfortunately it also calls some other functions so I need to determine the possible inputs for that function and repeat this until I've read 100s of lines of code just to use a single function because someone thought that documentation is uneccessary and 10 seconds of less typing were worth the tradeoff. Static typing is statically enforced documentation. Sure you might be lucky and already have voluntary documentation available but I am not. I'm getting sick of randomly being stuck for 10 hours on some trivial problem caused by wrong incentives.
C++ shows that in theory you can fix any flaw in an existing programming language as long as you maintain backwards compatibility by simply adding more features. The only thing you cannot change are implicit defaults (e.g. pass by value is the default, you have to manually opt out to pointers or references).
I like modern C++ because for me it's a reasonable compromise between java safety and C safety. Other than out of bounds memory accesses and legacy code I feel there is not much that can go wrong. However compiling C++ projects takes ages and in the projects I've worked on I often have to modify headers that are included almost everywhere. Every trivial changes requires a 5 minute rebuild.
After working with several high level programming languages with slow compilers I realised the following: typing is fast, compiling is slow. There is a reason why go is so popular. It offers that tradeoff in fast turn around time / compilation time with reasonably good performance and simplicity in exchange for more keyboard bashing and keyboard bashing is a cheap price to pay for what you're getting back.
>Using make, you can standardise a lot of this. If you set up a coding standard that after you clone a repo, "make dep" should grab anything the project requires, then developers don't initially need to know whether that's calling out to npm or composer or pip or whatever - it's just "working".
In my experience you will end up with a dozen coding "standards" and project structures. Especially in C and C++ where header dependencies have to be generated by the compiler even the most basic makefile will take you at least an hour to create if you already have experience in making makefiles.
The main function is 111 lines long but only roughly 30 lines of that are setup up code. The remaining 81 lines are the business logic that happens when a control has been interacted with.
Since when does initialising the GUI framework include all of your business logic and if it does should a non trivial application have a main function that is several thousands of lines long?
Why is paid busywork or a job guarantee more acceptable than basic income? Apparently the risk of basic income is that people end up only playing video games. But aren't video games the definition of busywork?