And then the lowest rung of all has to deal directly with meatspace in it’s smelly, sticky, 360 8K glory.

It bugs me that so many people far richer then me aren’t competent or confident enough to roll their eyes that that.

Yup.

Unfortunately, is still runs slower than Piefed on Python (IIRC) because the database code is godawful. Hopefully there will be a fix eventually.

Are smaller companies not falling into the FOMO mentality as much?

It’s interesting. On the other major PH community, a good laugh was had at everyone’s own expense. On this one, people are butthurt.

New technologies, when introduced, are typically given names that overstate their capabilities, usually by equating them with existing familiar systems or technological artefacts

It’s worse than that, really. When they named quantum computers, it was an analogy of a theoretical piece of lab equipment with an existing piece of lab equipment. Since then, computers have become a bit of a thing, and now people expect quantum computers to help with their gaming.

Interesting to see just how far these quantum computing groups have gone for an impressive-sounding press release.

Also, lol:

We use the UK form “factorise” here in place of the US variants “factorize” or “factor” in order to avoid the 40% tariff on the US term.

Maybe you could vapour-smooth it.

Ah yes, the old Scunthorp problem.

I’m picturing something like Slenderman arriving and dragging me off to the land of model failures forever.

Because if not, I feel like this could get the team in legal or at least financial hot water with investors.

Which doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, just that it’s not normal and okay.

I’m pretty sure this is set in the future.

Interesting how Wikipedia handles slashes in the title.

Good to know! Although I have to wonder if that’s true for programs more recently set up as well. That was >40 years ago.

Ah, so it dovetails with the whole “children get a name reasonably fast” thing. I was interpreting that as “ever, in a natural lifespan”. My bad, haha.

I suppose a counterexample to that might be cultures which do not use script in general. Then, obviously, there’s no Unicode characters for these non-existant glyphs.

True, but there’s little risk of a name being entered into a form without some kind of transcription.

It’s true. Who’s Jenny, for the zoomers in the chat?

Is there not a “falsehoods programmers think about phone numbers” yet?

Edit: And once again, I’m still confused about some of these. Do we need to expand unicode for names? It’s supposed to be universal. WTF is up with 40?

I’ve heard they can be spotty, although I’m personally sighted. That’s usually the reason people post transcripts, anyway.

I mean, there are blind users.

Absolutely cursed, lol.

So not only did they decide to randomly include Hebrew in their language, because I guess they were feeling kabbalistic, but they got the Hebrew wrong. In what way does any of that increase usability or even make them look competent?

It reminds me of the INTERCAL manual, which was a joke:

This precedence (or lack thereof) may be overruled by grouping expressions between pairs of sparks (’) or rabbit-ears (").

Yes, it would be simpler.

We all remember there’s a tradeoff though, right?

Edit: oops, guess I was mistaken, you can use most Unicode but emojis are not valid.

That actually seems even more arbitrary. Like, do they just hate fun?