Easy, buy a $15,000 dollar bike.

Boy are you going to have a real egg on your face whenever X becomes a successful blogging/dating/banking/investing app \s

I’m fairly certain this is showing an exponential trend in CO2 emissions, not a linear trend. The slope changes as a function of time. Linear isn’t really a good fit for the data.

This is why I always git push origin +branch_name

I didn’t go into tech for the money, but after several years of grinding I’m definitely at the point where I’m only still in it for the money. I don’t even want to think about computers outside of work anymore.

Maybe I’m misremembering, but didn’t pip have it’s own security concerns earlier this year?

I get that this is a bit, but even in D&D charisma and attractiveness are different. Unless the elder brain is supposed to be sexy, then I need to rethink some things.

deleted by creator

I think they’re trying to say that less people would fly than currently drive due to the cost of flying. Although, if we subsidized personal planes at the same rate that we do personal vehicles I’m not entirely sure that flying would continue to be so expensive.

In 5e evocation wizards get an ability that allows them to choose up to 1 + the spells level friendly targets that are unaffected by an evocation spell. This makes several of these large area of effect spells safe to use.

“New processes have no overhead!” - this idiot probably

Tbh I think we should just ignore them. They clearly have no interest in actually learning anything.

Maybe you should check how python compares relative to shell scripts before you comment. You’re making it very apparent that you don’t actually know what you’re talking about. Regardless of how slow python is, it is significantly faster than bash, or any other shell language purely by virtue of the fact that shell languages are primarily glue between other programs. Spawning a new process has a ton of overhead, which you would know if you were capable of doing anything other than projecting.

You’re also woefully unaware that it is completely possible to write python bindings for C++ code, which many popular libraries do. In practice python is not as slow as you think it is. That’s not even considering the fact that python 3.12 increased performance of the language.

It’s not perfect for everything, but this performance argument shows that you don’t know enough to understand why that isn’t really a drawback for writing scripts, which is undeniably an area that python excels at.

Agree 100%. At work I write my code that needs to be performant in C++ and scripts in python. I wouldn’t even dream of writing a script in C++.

Tbh you’d still be better off writing them in python. They’ll be more maintainable, and you’ll learn valuable skills.

Also, since you commented that python was the slowest language ever, shell scripts are often significantly slower. This is due to the fact that shell commands are actually calling other programs, which is very very slow.

To be fair, sometimes that runtime difference matters. That’s why it’s C++ and python is a fairly common skill-combo amongst devs. But the fact that this dude is basically bragging about writing shell scripts as if that’s something an experienced dev couldn’t figure out tells me that they don’t really know anything about when you would choose either.

If they had mentioned the Global Interpreter Lock or dynamic typing maybe they would have had some sort of real case for why you should avoid python in certain situations.

You should check out Click. Way more user friendly than argparse imo. I agree with all of your points though, and I’d also add if you are working on a team that it will be infinitely easier for a co-worker to decipher your python code compared to a bash script. And you can write unit tests with py test, the list goes on and on. If the environment you are deploying to has the python interpreter, you should use python over bash.

I work in software and I haven’t touched windows in a very long time. Even back whenever I worked on FPGA development all of that software ram on Linux, so I think you’ll find that this is very field dependent.

China isn’t Maoist. I’d be a lot cooler if it were though.

Weird, I thought electrical engineers designed those computers but it turns out it was capitalism, because as we all know engineers only exist within a capitalist framework.

What’s better for climate change is less cars on the road, not underground roads. If we are going to be digging these expensive tunnels in every city they should be for subway systems. That would be a substantially better use of the funds and would be a good step towards reducing the emissions of a city. This is all assuming that we stop subsidizing car ownership so heavily of course.

The entire process of building and repairing roads is pretty carbon intensive due to the amount of concrete involved.