Interesting, had never considered that, it does make sense. Although that created the absolute clusterfuck that is JS where [ ] + [ ] is "" and { } + { } is NaN. Thanks for remind me of https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat hadn’t watched that in a while.

I don’t think there are more languages being created now than before. There are tons of languages that have been created over the years, but you get the survivors bias effect where the ones that are actually useful in some context start being used in that context, and the ones that are less useful stop being used.

When you were learning python was already established, but I remember having long discussions trying to convince people to use it instead of Java because it was a much higher level with much better in many aspects at some cost performance, and if you’re not willing to pay that cost you should revert to C++ which is much better than Java anyways.

And that’s sort of what’s happening here. C++ is good for things that need to be fast, but it requires careful consideration to avoid several issues, if you don’t need the speed, python gives you a much better experience in several aspects. For other specific things there are specific languages that fit better, if you’re developing for web JS is already in most browsers so that’s an easy choice, and if you want to make a game maybe you learn C# to use in Unity. But for general stuff C++ and Python have been the de facto standards as they cover most use cases very comfortably, so there hasn’t been any real competition for them.

Enter Rust, Go, Zig, etc. Even if something is a standard it doesn’t mean it’s the best thing, Assembly, Cobol, Fortran, C have all been standards, but C++ can do 99% of what those other languages did and makes things easier, so slowly it became the default language. Of those “new” languages the only one I know enough is Rust, so let’s talk about what Rust brings to the table that’s not available on C++ or python, and why people are so excited for it.

Rust is fast, we’re talking C level fast, this means that Rust beats almost every other language (including C++). Rust is safe, it’s purposefully designed not to allow you to miss use it accidentally, this includes memory safety which is the most talked about, but it’s a whole thing in Rust, with enums you need to match all cases, result types that includes error responses, and optional objects that force you to acknowledge the None. Rust has a great package support, better than python because it’s standardized. Besides all that Rust is able to be used almost everywhere, whereas C/C++ does work in many places, but libraries for it don’t.

So, why new languages? Because there are things to improve.

I have at no point compared black people to dogs, or even mentioned anything related to race beyond a comparison of statistical facts to showcase how ridiculous the argument is. You’re creating a Straw man to attack and deflecting my question, so we’ll keep going in circles forever, because answering a straight yes or no would compromise you.

Read everything that I posted so far and you will realize the entire time what I’m saying is “a small subgroup causing the most fatalities, therefore subgroup aggressive” is a bad argument. That is the whole of what I’m saying, and you haven’t replied whether you think that is a good or a bad argument. The reason why you haven’t done so is simple:

• If you say it’s a bad argument you’re agreeing with me, therefore no reply is needed.

• If you say it’s a good argument then you’re agreeing with any racist asshole who uses the same argument applied to people, and you should take a long hard look at yourself to see whether that’s the kind of peraon you want to be. And honestly, I don’t want to keep talking to anyone who thinks like this as they have been so brainwashed they won’t get convinced by a random person online.

In reality I’m fairly confident you want the argument to apply to dogs but not to people, and that’s just not how logic works. Facts are facts, you can’t disagree with them, the conclusion from those facts is logic, and that can be flawed (as is for the case of the proof of aggressive behavior). So when confronted with the fact that you’re defending a logic argument that can be made about people, instead of thinking “huh, I guess it’s a bad argument” you go “I’m not racist, you’re racist”, that is called deflection. So you attack a Straw man argument that I’m comparing people to dogs so that you don’t have to admit that your prejudice against pitbulls made you agree with an undefendable racist argument. Still the conclusion is the same, there’s no reason to reply to someone who’s being fallacious at best and making bad faith arguments at worst. If you honestly expect any answer from me your reply should clearly state whether you consider the “X is a small subgroup yet causes the majority of fatalities, therefore X is dangerous” a good argument.

At no point in my reply did I mention race, I said the argument of “X is a minority, yet causes the majority of fatalities, therefore X is dangerous” is a bad argument. That is the whole of my point.

Two possibilities exist: Either you think it’s a good argument argument, or you don’t.

Which is it? Do you think the argument “X is a minority yet causes the majority of fatalities, therefore X is dangerous” is a good argument?

Water analogy still applies for that. If the pipes are already full of water if you inject water on one end it almost immediately comes out of the other, even if the water is only being injected at a slow speed. It’s not immediate because the moment you inject water the water in the pipes first compress and that compression travel like a wave much faster than the water.

The moment the water analogy falls apart is when you depend on magnetism, because electrons moving cause a magnetic field around, but water moving doesn’t generate any field around it, so it can’t imitate an electromagnet or a transformer.

There might be, but I’ve only ever heard “X is a minority yet causes the majority of fatalities” used for two Xs, it’s bad logic in both cases, it would be bad logic in any other case too, feel free to find me another example of that logic that people instinctively understand it’s wrong and I’ll use that next time.

Uh, interesting, I had never heard of that before, I’ll definitely give it a read some time.

I find the water analogy works well even with electronic concepts like diodes (one way valves), capacitors (something like a shishi-odoshi), etc. The only place it fails is when magnetism is involved, like transformers or electromagnets.

You’re correct, in one my edits before submitting I must have erased the 100 there and forgot to move the decimal place, thanks for pointing it out (I’ve edited my post). The rest of the math was done considering the correct number, i.e. 1.2 weapon per person, it was just a wording mistake.

Others have already answered, but one thing I think helps a lot in understanding electricity is to think of it as water. Water running through a hose behaves exactly the same as electricity running through a wire.

The amount of water running through the hose is similar to the amount of electrons running through the wire. We call this current, and measure it in Amperes. Whenever you read amperes think about the flow of material through the medium. Can this value be negative? Sure, it means the current is flowing in the opposite direction.

If one end of the hose is higher than the other the water will flow from the taller part to the lowest one. Measuring how tall one part of the system is compared to another tells you a what potential difference there is there. We call this Voltage and measure it in Volts. Whenever you read volts think about the potential of movement, if there is a 5 Volt difference between two points in your circuit, connecting a wire between those points will produce a flow, just like how if one reservoir is higher than another connecting a hose between them will move water around. Can this value be negative? Sure, it means the other side has more potential energy.

If the inside of the hose has a rougher surface water will have more difficulty flowing through there than if it’s smooth. We call this resistance and measure it in Ohms. Whenever you read ohms think about how difficult it is for the current to flow through. Conversely Mhos (OHM spelled backwards) is how easily current flows through the material. Can either of these values be negative? Not usually, but things can behave as if they had a negative resistance, e.g. an amplifier, which in our water analogy is a device that uses a small water flow to control the doors for a larger door, if you have 1 drop per second it let’s put 1L per second on the other side, so it can be seen as something that increased the water flow, therefore negative resistance.

Now you want to move a wheel with your water, for the water this wheel is seen like a hose that’s harder to move through, so it offers some resistance. If you don’t have enough water flowing it won’t budge. You can move the wheel ba raising the other side of the hose, this increasing the speed the water flows and giving it more energy, or you can do the same by putting more water in the hose thus increasing the current. Therefore we need a unit to measure how easily the water at a given point can move a wheel. We call this Potence and measure it in Watts or VA (Volt-Ampere). Whenever you see Watt think about the amount of energy the el electricity has at that point.

Lamps have a measure in Watts, because they’re like a wheel that the water will move, and they’re letting you know how much water energy you need to throw at it for it to move, you can use high amperage low voltage, or high voltage low amperage to get to this result. Because both the Voltage on your house, and the resistance of the lamp are fixed values, you can calculate the resulting amperage and wattage.

I think I went a bit off topic, but I hope this helps clarify some of those concepts.

According to a quick check on Wikipedia Switzerland has 27.6 firearms per 100 people, so in average you can expect 1 in 4 people to be armed. While the USA has 1.205 weapons per person, so you can expect in average that 1 in 5 people has an extra weapon besides the one 100% of the population does.

I think the 436% increase in weapon per capita might contribute to an increase with gun violence, but that’s just my guess.

And I suppose you also think that in this comment I’m trivialising the struggles of pit bulls by comparing them to apples.

Bad logic is bad logic, whether applied to dogs, humans, apples or whatever. The fact that you can instinctively understand the argument is wrong when applied to people is the exact reason I used that, so people would understand it’s a bad argument that proves nothing.

Came to say exactly this. Lost my dad at 18 and I’m 37 now, you just learn to live with it. Time makes it easier because it distances you and gives you lots of other experiences without them, but even decades later you might catch yourself thinking about them.

I always remember a quote by (GNU) Terry Pratchett:

No one is actually dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away

And you yourself are a ripple, your father is alive within you, remember him and carry him with you.

Would love to know about other ways

If a support person can’t switch keyboard layout, I have absolutely no confidence they can fix whatever’s wrong with my machine.

Plus I use a tiling window manager with custom shortcuts, my keyboard is a split with blank keys and I use a trackball. I think it’s fair to say changing the keyboard layout would be a tiny step to overcome for anyone trying to use my machine hahahshs

If you have to look at the keyboard you’re doing it wrong. My main board had blank keys, my laptop has the qwerty keys, I just don’t look at them

My first recommendation is maybe consider a different layout. If you have been typing for long you will have muscle memory that will be hard to erase, I could mostly blind type (though not touch type) on qwerty, I decided to learn Colemak for touch typing and have never looked back. I still retain the muscle memory and can type somewhat fast on qwerty but after years of correct typing I notice just how bad what I was doing was.

IIRC I used https://thetypingcat.com/typing-courses/basic and trained on that and similar websites for a long time. You have to know that you will be very slow during a while and have to be prepared for that, but it does pay out in the end. While I didn’t increased my typing speed significantly (70 to 85) it is a lot less strenuous on my hands.

As a Colemak user I highly encourage people to learn a different layout. The thing that convinced me to Colemak was this: https://www.patrick-wied.at/projects/heatmap-keyboard/

Paste some long text you have written and it will show you a heat map on different layouts to see how the typing of that text on that layout would have been. I loaded a large code I was working on and Colemak was mostly home row.

Sure, that’s a generalized explanation but you can use a stainless steel pan in several other ways, for example boiling pasta. But if you want it to be non-stick like OP asked that’s the way. And sure, you don’t need to rely on the Leidenfrost effect, you can use a surface thermometer or after you’ve used the same pan enough just your feeling of it, but for a generalized way to tell people how to measure the temperature it’s a great marker.

BTW, I make my eggs over easy using that exact same set of steps, so it absolutely can be done. In fact if you don’t do that the egg will stick to the pan and you won’t be able to flip it, and if you can’t flip it it’s not over. Also if the pan is not hot enough the yolk will cook, the pan needs to be hot enough to sear it and cook it on the outside without giving time to cook the inside thoroughly.

The more I think about this, the worse that example looks. The steps I outlined are exactly what’s needed to make an over easy egg on a stainless steel pan.

Sure it matters, if you don’t normalize for sample size your data is meaningless. Here’s a similar example:

I have a farm that produces both red and green apples, last harvest I had to throw away 100 red apples because they went bad, but only 10 green apples for the same reason.

You would think that red apples spoil 10x easier than green ones, but you’re missing the crucial information that my farm produced 10.000 red apples and 1.000 green ones, so in both cases it represented 1% of the whole amount.

This could be the same thing, if there are more Pitbulls than other races it would be expected that they bite more in absolute numbers.

Human is a species, dog is also a species. The exact same argument could be made that it’s still dogs v dogs. The only difference is that slave breeding didn’t happened often or long enough, humans are not special we’re animals and subject to the same biology that dogs, our lifespan are longer so it takes longer to breed us into anything as drastically different as a Chihuahua and a Rottweiler but it could be done just as easily and using the exact same techniques. And biologically speaking the differences between dog breeds is very minimal, they’re still the same species, and still can inter breed, it’s just a matter of different phenotypes which would erode in a couple of inter-breed generations.

You need to stop thinking that humans are special in any way or that races/breeds exist as anything more than “these look similar”. Sure, there is a genetic explanation of why they look similar, but claiming dogs that were bred for X are lesser, or more aggressive or anything is a slippery slope argument when humans have also been bred in recent history, and if you had read any statistics about this you would know that in both cases once you normalize for standard of living these differences disappear. In short the data proves that a Pitbull is not statistically significantly more aggressive than a Labrador that were raised in the same condition, but take a Labrador from puppy and spank him daily show him no love and make him fight for food and then act surprised Pikachu face when he attacks someone, it’s just that there exists a correlation between pieces of shit who like to do that and people who like Pitbulls.

In any case, this has gone terribly out of the point I was making originally, which you never replied to, and I’m tired of every answer you pulling a new Red Herring to avoid acknowledging that “X is a minority yet it’s responsible for the majority of fatalities, therefore X is violent” is a bad argument.