It starts out that way, but moves more into the viewpoint that the American university system is several things bundled together that are coming apart and AI is only part of the issue (others are just the Internet in general creating a parallel social life and the current American government deciding that research funding is a political tool rather than a value in itself.) Basically university traditionally is where young people figure out their interests and people they want to hang out with are, the education and credentialing system they need to get a job, and independent of these undergraduates, a research institution bringing in millions of dollars of grant money a year per university, which people not professors or grad students only vaguely aware exist.

Couldn't they use sails plus that? Are these companies advocating for just sails, or sails plus other stuff?

Sails plus the regular engines, for a % in fuel reduction that adds up at scale.

That’s exactly what they’re doing to reduce fuel usage by up to 6%.

I think it's up to 24% for rotor sails,no?

The elephant in the room is the standard library (collections). It isn't even type safe yet, because some methods were around before generics were added. And collections are too core for anyone to be able to agree on a 3rd party standard.

I mean, I guess you could say stuff like get(Object) and contains(Object) aren't type safe, but I've never seen that as an issue in practice. Plus there are some ErrorProne checks that'll tell you if you're doing something wrong in regards to calling contains(Object) with the wrong type.

They accept Object not because they're not type safe. They accept Object because key `equals` method might return `true` for unrelated classes by design, and collections interfaces have to accommodate for that. In other words, you might put key of class C1 into the map, and later use `get` with key of class C2. And if these classes happen to implement `equals` accepting each other, the collections are supposed to work.

So the core issue is that `Object.equals` method isn't type safe. Collections API just follow that.

So you need to believe in design documents, and if you don't like them you're probably trying to manipulate people? But have you justified design documents?

I can think of situations where design document(s) would be a clear use, and I think that would be a better way to respond.

But surely random crashes is better than a broken login screen that prevents you from doing any work at all?

Just not being able to use one application is better than your whole OS going up in smoke every couple weeks. Yes, Windows 95A on the wrong hardware (and how would you know?) did that.

I mean, sure, although the crashes could sometimes come with data loss as well.

You might now ponder whether a broken login screen, i.e. temporarily not being able to access data, is maybe better than downright losing it, but my point was more that I sometimes get the feeling that earlier MS DOS/Windows OSes are now seen through some kind of nostalgia glasses, that seem to make the OSes much more stable and put together than they actually were.

In my experience, most somewhat mainstream OSes were much less shoddy. This includes various Unixes and Unix-likes, but also OS/2 (which was jointly developed by Microsoft, with IBM).

I think it's an optical illusion. It looks weird to me, but comparing it with various objects I have I do feel like they're parallel.

Specifically the roof edge vs base edge, the back of the roof vs the front of the roof.

The most amazing thing about this isn't that ownership and lines of responsibility and politics are messed up, it's that the guy holding the reins is 100% aware of this and has no power to get the horse to move in the right direction. Is there not an org chart? How is there not a person above who knows what who below them owns? If these are the execs below Bill, how does Bill not know which one owns it? If he knows and they're not taking responsibility, why doesn't he fire them? Reading this I'm honestly more surprised that Microsoft lasted past 2004.

I don't think GP was claiming they weren't.

I clicked on that expecting to see something about the limitations of retained mode, but I didn't see anything. There's a claim about long term retained mode complexity, and a discussion about a winit bug...

Doesn't the placeholder imply nothingness? E.g. 10 means 1 ten and 0 ones.

No, that implication is not automatic. The Babylonian numeral system evolved over milenaries, and the simple space noting the absence of a digit between two digits was later noted by a "0" digit. But this symbol was never used by itself, so it did not mean "nothingness". In the same way, a civilization having the concepts of addition and subtraction does not automatically induce the concept of negative numbers.

On the other side, ancient Egyptian numerals did have a zero, but it was only for nothingness. But they did not have a placeholder zero, because their systems was similar to Greek and Roman numerals.