I’m afraid it’s DLC only content, and requires a lot of macro-transactions

I sometimes feel like Ouija board is a better source than many, nowadays

Got it. I agree that their drivers are (were?) of exemplary bad quality

But I don’t think that it is realistically possible to drop all the proprietary firmware blobs, and if it’s not maybe it’s better to not actively sabotage something to ‘avoid those being feasible’?

Early returns improve readability in that they make it simpler to read, but I also find them decreasing readability in that you may miss an early return and wonder why is execution not hitting the line you expect it to

If I understand correctly, each data-access structure represents single workflow, and you may have Transaction in that structure without the need for Arc<Mutex<…>> inside, but maybe you will need to wrap the structure itself with that.

What’s the reason to avoid binary blob drivers being feasible? Is that about not being able to use non-free binary blobs in kernel? I don’t quite understand what it even is about

Sometimes this is useful, though. Other times it’s infuriating 😅

Reminds me of A Scanner Darkly a bit, yeah I would not trust someone like that

You don’t need to use and learn everything, just pick what you need.

I used to think the same, but now I think you should at least skim through everything. Reason being otherwise you may reinvent the wheel a lot, and there are many use-cases where you really don’t want to do that (but C++ makes it so easy, I was constantly tempted to just do what I want and not look for it being already available)

A lot of computational heavy tasks for science were done in Fortran at least ten years ago (and I think still are). I was told that’s mainly because Fortran has a good deal of libraries for just that, and it was widely taught in academia so this is a common ground between the older and newer generations.

I think it may be gradually superseded by Python, but I don’t know if it is

However you define it, a central nervous system or other type of similar central unit would have to be a requirement, because that is what would actually be sentient

Without CNS there would be something else sophisticated enough to show sentience that would have been sentient. So to me it looks like this is not really a requirement, albeit it’s simpler to say that it is.

As a side note, I think that given how human-centric humans are (which is to be expected, really) even if we were living with another sentient species on the same planet we would argue they are not sentient for whatever reason we could come up with, and change sentience definition accordingly

lectured on semantics rather than responding to the meaning

this is ironic

not even all vegans who don’t use honey agree on whether or not a vegan can use honey

Exactly this, veganism is ethical choice, and ethics is not science. You can’t ‘prove’ that something is acceptable, nor vice versa. There are guidelines and discussions but that’s pretty much it.

So this is really not about whether bees are animals or not.

But you can ignore the response if you decide to not deal with it

How do you make sure you understood the idea if the word choice is incorrect? You may assume from context what the idea was, but you may as well assume wrong. And the more such assumptions exist in one dialogue, the further it is from information exchange, and the closer it is to not listening at all because you already knew the context before the dialogue

I think that if replies are rare and spot on, it may be a good PR. But do it every time and it will just be a waste of time without any good results

saying that the British should inherit it is a very weak argument

Yes, I am not making that argument, inheritors mush be at least somewhat related.

Although, in case you’re talking about, the indigenous people’s artifacts will likely end up in the country of their conquerors and oppressors, which is also a shame

It’s not an empire if you call it a federation /s

This is reasonable, but what if the culture that created the artifacts already went extinct like Maya? Besides, we’re not only talking about how it shouldn’t have been done in the past, but also about what to do today with that past.

It’s easy to say that everything bad of today is only because of wrongdoings of yesterday, but it is not useful and usually is only used as propaganda for something that has no justification except for the past being bad.

Edit: although, now that I think about it, coming from this viewpoint, that past is past and we should care about present, it’s clear that you’re right. If the culture bearer (or the inheritor, but this is grey zone for me) wants to destroy what is rightfully theirs, so be it. There is a bit of an issue with making those decisions by all eligible people, not a couple of extremists, though. Well, I think I found the contradiction that I had in me