To myself and many others, vscode is not the defacto answer. JetBrains is. IntelliJ was miles ahead of eclipse last time I checked. Rider is miles ahead of Visual Studio. WebStorm is miles ahead of vscode for js etc.
It's not even a competition, to me. I've had to use Visual Studio instead of Rider for work the past year and it's been a very bad experience.
The biggest difference is JetBrains intellisense feels like it's reading my mind, I'll just type a couple characters and hit tab most of the time. Visual studio on the other hand has the worst intellisense I can imagine. It very frequently just messes up what I'm doing - I'll write what I want correctly, hit space and VS will just change it to something entirely different and import a package while it's at it. It's incredibly annoying. And when I actually want to use auto complete, say for example I've declared a variable on the line above and I want to use it, I'll write a couple characters and then without fail the variable I just declared on the line above is like option 6 down the list behind a bunch of crap that doesn't even make sense in the context at all. And as if it wasn't enough that the IDE is crap when it's working correctly, it very frequently craps out and just stops providing syntax highlighting and such in .razor files, or showing errors in files that compile just fine, forcing me to restart it and delete the .vs folder. Like every day.
Personally I think the only people who prefer other products than JB are people who don't know what they're missing. JB is literally just better in pretty much every way. At least the products I've used. I think I'll turn down the next job that asks me to use VS.
You don't even need decimals. Nobody who uses celsius gives a shit about the decimals. It's -4 or it's -5 and even that distinction is irrelevant.
Unless you're doing some kind of scientific calculaton there's no need to think about decimals of celsius at all. Just like Fahrenheit users surely don't care whether it's 50 or 53 or whatever. It's around 50, that's all you need to know.
Yes, but then you might conceivably still measure temperature in degrees Réaumur, if it's a rather traditional brewer. Or so I was told by a Reliable Source(tm).
You say that, but to me they seem roughly the same as they've been for a good while. Wildly impressive technology, very useful, but also clearly and confidently incorrect a lot. Most of the improvement seems to have come from other avenues - search engine integration, image processing (still blows my mind every time I send a screenshot to a LLM and it gets it) and stuff like that.
Sure maybe they do better in some benchmarks, but to me the experience of using LLMs is and has been limited by their tendency to be confidently incorrect which betrays their illusion of intelligence as well as their usefulness. And I don't really see any clear path to getting past this hurdle, I think this may just be about as good as they're gonna get in that regard. Would be great if they prove me wrong.
Deepseek, Nvidia and meta are pumping out one paper after another.
New and better things are coming. They will just take time to implement, and I doubt they cancel current training runs. So I guess it will take up to a year for the new things to come out
Can the bubble burst in this time, because people lose patience? Of course. But we are far from the end.
This is a load of bullshit man. Even the article you linked describes lying to his friends' parents to get a second dinner, being unable to have just one cookie etc.
The only way to get fat is to eat too much and anyone who really eats too much will get fat. There's a huge amount of people who simply lie or are ignorant about their food intake. Fat people falsely claiming they hardly eat anything but can't lose weight etc. Of course you lose weight if you don't eat. Your body can't create energy from nothing. Without energy you die.
Always a fair request. I don't know it well enough or have time at the moment, but afaik it's the medical consensus:
Obesity is a disease, (mostly) not a result of behavior. Eating less and/or more activity doesn't cure people; iirc bodies adjust to retain the same amount of fat, etc. under the new conditions.
Then how does ozempic, whose primary mechanism of action is to decrease appetite, work for obese people?
Yes, your body will compensate somewhat for caloric deficit, and yes, when you gain enough fat mass your adipocytes will divide, creating more/stronger hunger signals that encourage weight gain moreso than someone who was never obese.
But your body is not magic. If you feed it a sufficiently low amount of calories, it has to break down energy stores, e.g. fat, to make up the difference in energy requirements.
That's a report on one person under direct medical supervision. The general consensus, afaik, is that starving yourself doesn't work, at least not more than short term - the weight comes right back.
It is a disease as in “your metabolism is slow” so you need to cut food even more. It is a disease as “you have problem with controlling your impulses and therefore crave food”
Psychological diseases are not better or worse from psychical/metabolic ones. They are real, and for some of them we have or we develop medicine.
Nobody is claiming that obesity can’t be a result of a disease, but under the hood it always ends up as: calories surplus is stored as fat.
Slow metabolism is a bit of a myth. By that I mean that it's not strictly wrong to say someone has a slow metabolism, but metabolism is an expression of your activity level so what you're really saying is the person is sedentary. If the person starts being more active their metabolism will necessarily increase.
So, slow metabolism is not a disease, it's not a genetic disorder, it is simply a result of the fact that someone is spending too much time on the couch.
I think this gets lost a lot when people talk about "slow metabolism", they turn it into this thing they're just helpless to influence, like they're just cursed with a slow metabolism and that's that. It's not like that at all, which is why I don't like the term. It just hides the reality of the situation.
I don't know where you get your science man but I'm about 100% sure what you just said is completely false. Not even remotely controversial just flat out wrong.
I asked first. You're the one claiming all this scientific and expert consensus. I'm just talking common sense stuff that pretty much everyone agree on. This is simply the basics of how the body works. I could take some time to find some sources but so could you and you aren't so why should I?
It's pretty clear that you're thoroughly convinced of your own bullshit anyway, if you had any interest at all in finding the truth you'd do some light googling and find that pretty much everything I'm saying is true. I'm not interested in wasting my time finding arbitrary sources for common knowledge that you're just going to ignore anyway.
You don't have to find sources for me, I know they don't exist and if you find anything it's going to be obvious bullshit anyway. There are no serious doctors, nutritionists nor researchers who have any doubt whatsoever regarding what the roles and relationships of food and fat are in the human body. You're obviously just delusional. So good luck with that, I hope you can get past your issues and improve your life some day.
You admitted to me a few days ago that you are so fat that it makes you miserable. If direct, personal experience with it not working doesn't convince you, nothing will.
Yeah I said I find it miserable to be moderately overweight. I never said being more active and eating less doesn't work. It works great when I do it. I was under 90kg last year after just a few months of being active and eating better. And when I stop being active and start eating too much food, I gain weight. Which is literally exactly what I'm saying. So, I have direct personal experience with my advice working exactly the way I'm telling you it does.
At this point I'm just saying the same shit I said in the other comment already. The fact that I find it hard to follow my own advice, which I just told you because I thought it might help get my point across, is completely irrelevant to whether the advice works.
Anyway I'm over this whole conversation at this point. Do and believe whatever you want. I've said what I wanted to say. If you don't believe me that's fine, I don't care.
Let's say there is a new discovery tomorrow - there is a virus that lives in your mitochondria, and makes them unable to produce energy. We can make a vaccine against it, and nobody will ever get fat.
Why would I be against that? I'm not against ozempic either.
I'm just against people who throw their hands in the air, say "my fatness is a disease" and continue eating 4000 calories a day while hardly moving at all. And just to be clear I'm not against the fatness - if you want to be fat that's fine, I don't care. It's your life. And if you want to say it's a mental disorder that's fine too, addiction is real and I know first hand that it's hard to resist good food and get off the couch.
Just don't claim there's nothing to be done about it. There is. I and many people I know have successfully lost weight by eating less and moving more. I've also gained weight by eating too much and moving too little. Because that's literally how it works, for everyone in the entire world. Sure it's possible to have some disease or disorder that prevents you from gaining weight by preventing you from utilizing the calories in your food. Or parasites can steal your calories. But if you aren't eating, your body still needs energy. It can't just choose to not use energy, energy is required to live. Without energy the heart doesn't beat, the lungs don't breathe, the brain doesn't brain, the muscles don't work. It's not like the body's just wasting energy, it uses as much as it has to. It's a fine tuned machine. So it can't just use less - the only way to use less energy is to spend less by moving less. Maybe the body can reduce it slightly by adjusting organ activity and such, but not much.
This is why we breathe oxygen and exhale CO2. Oxygen is literally used to burn calories, CO2 is the product of that combustion. Just like in a fire. When you exert yourself the body is spending more energy so it needs more oxygen and produces more CO2, that's why we need to breathe faster and our heart beats faster to get the oxygen to where it's needed and get rid of all the CO2. When you relax, your pulse and breathing lowers because you're burning very little.
Now, with this understanding of basic body functions it's obvious that moving more and eating less is how you lose weight. There is no question about it, it's just clear as day and absolutely indisputable.
Entire world? Everybody? No, I think most people are completely aware of the link between overeating and overweight. If everyone around you agree that food intake and weight are entirely unrelated things then maybe you're just in some kind of echo chamber. Or maybe people just don't care enough to challenge your ideas. I don't know, but I do know for a fact that what I said earlier is true and that it is the overwhelming scientific consensus.
That's why common remedies for obesity are things like dieting, stomach reducing surgery to reduce capacity for food, and ozempic and similar drugs that reduce appetite. See how the common denominator here is less food? Diet for those who can do it that way, more drastic measures for those who struggle with self control. And of course all of these solutions work better when coupled with regular physical activity. Simply taking a daily walk for half an hour is a great way to burn some extra calories and get the heart pumping at least a little, this has many benefits beyond burning calories.
Trust me I know it's hard. I'm not in the shape I wish I was. It's a lot easier to order a pizza than go to the store, figure out what to make, buy ingredients and cook a heathy meal. And it's so nice just crushing half or more of a large pizza in one sitting. The amount of junk food i can eat before I feel full is way more than I should have. It's a lot easier to spend all day in front of the computer or on the couch than getting out and doing some exercise. It's hard to do the things I know I should do, when what I should do and what I want to do are so different. I know from experience that when you get going it's easier to keep it going but I've also fallen off the wagon a lot. And it's not like you just do it for a little while and you're good, it's a permanent lifestyle change. It takes months or years of dieting to get down to a normal weight, it's a huge task.
But if you don't even believe that this is the solution, which it unequivocally is by the way, then you're either going to waste your time and probably money on things that don't work or more likely just keep eating yourself into an early grave while telling yourself you're just unlucky.
And I think it's worth some negative social points for saying things that might upset some people on social media, if I can maybe influence someone to get their shit together and work towards a better life.
This isn't opinion, I am 100% sure about these things and I'm not paid to say them. I just want to help. Trust me, you can lose weight and eating less and moving more is the way to do it. Ozempic and similar drugs can help with that and there's no shame in using them. The only thing that matters is getting healthy.
Obesity is a deadly condition and it's miserable. Trust me I've been in great shape I know exactly what I'm missing. And I'm not even very overweight, I'm about 100kg and it's already miserable. I can't imagine what it must be like for someone to weigh 150+. Struggling to breathe, getting winded just from getting off the couch. It's no way to spend your limited time in this world.
Oh and I forgot to mention a cool fact in my previous comment: that CO2 you're breathing out - that is your fat. That's where your fat goes when you burn it, you literally breathe it out. And the carbs of course. Your body turns the food you eat into energy and CO2. Unless you eat too much, then it turns it into fat to store it for later.
> Expecting your average front-end logic to be compiled in WebAssembly does not make much sense.
Why not? .NET Blazor and others already do that. In my eyes this was the whole hype of WASM. Replace JS. I don't give a crap about running node/java/whatever in the browser, why would i want that? I can run those outside the browser. I mean sure if you have some use case for it that's fine and I'm glad WASM lets you do it but I really don't see why most devs would care about that. We use the browser for browsing the web and displaying our websites.
To me the browser is for displaying websites and I make websites but I loathe JS. So being able to make websites without JS is awesome.
Because people don't want to load 300MB for a simple website (and this is blocking the first render, not just loading in the background).
Not every language is a good source for targeting WASM, in the sense that you don't want to bring a whole standard library, custom runtime etc with you.
High-level languages may fare better if their GC is compatible with Wasm's GC model, though, as in that case the resulting binaries could be quite small. I believe Java-to-wasm binaries can be quite lean for that reason.
In c#'s case, it's probably mostly blazor's implementation, but it's not a good fit in this form for every kind of website (but very nice for e.g. an internal admin site and the like)
A modern blazor wasm app is nowhere near 300mb. There are techniques to reduce this size like tree shaking. There's no need to include lots of unused libraries.
Modern Blazor can do server side rendering for SEO/crawlers and fast first load similar to next.js, and seamlessly transition to client side rendering or interactive server side rendering afterwards.
Your info/opinion may be based on earlier iterations of Blazor.
That's still pretty bloated. That's enough size to fit an entire Android application a few years ago (before AndroidX) and simple Windows/Linux applications. I'll agree that it's justified if you're optimizing for runtime performance rather than first-load, which seems to be appropriate for your product, right?!
What is this 2 MB for? It would be interesting to hear about your WebAssembly performance story!
Regarding the website homepage itself: it weighs around 767.32 kB uncompressed in my testing, most of which is an unoptimized 200+kB JPEG file and some insanely large web fonts (which honestly are unnecessary, the website looks _pretty good_ and could load much faster without them).
Thats not too surprising as most web developers are JS developers. I'm sure JS will stay dominant at least a while longer, but in the .NET world Blazor is quite popular as far as web frameworks go. I imagine it will keep gaining popularity.
The thing people don't think about with regards to CO2 capture is that you have to get the atmosphere in order to capture CO2 from it. You essentially have to suck the entire atmosphere into these carbon capture facilities.
Using something like this to capture carbon from an exhaust pipe might be viable, but scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere is not even remotely viable. There's just too much air out there.
You can actually capture CO2 from sea water thereby reducing ocean acidification and improving its capability to continue as our planets biggest CO2 sink.
It is actually amazingly energy efficient as the electrolysis produces H2 at one electrode and consumes it at the other. Hence, very little additional energy is needed. As offshore wind produces a lot of surplus energy at night - this could be used. So far it was possible to capture approx. 92% of the CO2 in the amount of seawater handled. Could likely be increased to 94% - 96%.
You're still ignoring the fact that there is an absolutely unfathomably insane amount of water on the planet.
The world's largest pump (according to a quick search) can pump 60,000 liters per second. The oceans contain over 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water. One cubic kilometer is a trillion liters. It would take this pump - the largest pump in the world - 192 days to move one cubic kilometer of water.
Let's be charitable and say we can make a noticeable dent in ocean CO2 if we could only process 1% of the ocean's water per year. That's about 13 million cubic kilometers. Let's be generous and say one of these pumps can do 2 cubic kilometers a year even though it's a bit less. So we'd need 7.5 million of these pumps - and of course we'd also need each of them to be connected to a facility that's capable of processing all the water as quickly as the pump can supply it.
This is the problem with carbon capture. We can't build many/large enough capture facilities to make a difference.
You're right, it's expensive and hard, so it's better to not do anything and... migrate all humanity onto space stations so we don't die with the earth, I guess is the alternative you're suggesting?
It's not expensive and hard, it's impossible. The largest carbon capture facility in the world is called mammoth, and in order to offset our current emissions we would need a million of them. We can not build a million of them.
This is why climate scientists have been saying for a hundred years that we need to stop producing all this CO2, because we can't take it back. We can't just fix it. We can't just get back all the ice that's melted and keeps melting, we can't unthaw the permafrost. We can't stop all the methane and other climate gases that have been trapped under ice for millions of years from being released and making it even worse. We just can not do it.
We were warned, we ignored the warnings and now we're seeing the consequences.
Never in the history of the planet has the temperature increased anywhere near as quickly as it's doing now.
If you look at a chart of historic temperature levels, pretty much every significant change on that chart corresponds to a mass extinction.
So yes, the earth does die. The earth has died many times before and it's currently happening again. The rock itself will still be here but us and pretty much everything else that lives here will be wiped out by climate change. The only question is how long it will take, and as you can see it's going fast.
This is not controversial, except for ignorant people who refuse to face the facts. This is what climate scientists have been warning us about for our entire lives.
Doesn't matter whether you believe it, it's happening.
Of course warming is accelerating. Emissions are accelerating and the second and third order effects of ice cap loss, thawing permafrost etc are setting in on top.
We have known about this for a century at this point and it's still being presented like a surprise. It's not a surprise. It's exactly what anyone who's paid attention has been expecting for decades.
Over a decade ago I decided not to have kids because I don't think they will have a world worth inheriting. I've mostly stopped following these kinds of news because it's depressing but it's not at all surprising.
They've been telling us this would happen for my entire life, and everyone has been sticking their heads in the sand thinking it'll be fine for the next few hundred years and looking at me like I'm a lunatic when I tell them it's happening during our lifetimes.
Don't worry sfn42 because those with their heads in the sand with be forced to face reality as that sand fills with water thus forcing them out for air.
YouTube does this. When I open a video the quality is set to Auto by default. It'll also show the "actual" quality next to it, like "Auto 1080p". Complete lie. I see this and see the video looks like 480p, manually change to 1080p and it's instantly much better. The auto quality thing is a flat out lie.
Couldn't they be miles better if we allowed screens to be thicker than a few millimeters?
I believe one could do some fun stuff with waveguides and beam steering behind the screen if we had 2 inch thick screens. Unfortunately decent audio is harder to market and showcase in a bestbuy than a "vivid" screen.
If someone buys a TV (y'know, a device that's supposed to reproduce sound and moving pictures), it should at least be decent at both. But if people want a high-end 5.1/7.1/whatever.1 sound then by all means they should be able to upgrade.
My mum? She doesn't want or need that, nor does she realistically have the space to have a high-end home-cinema entertainment setup (much less a dedicated room for it).
It's just a TV in her living room surrounded by cat toys and some furniture.
So, if she buys a nearly €1000 TV (she called it a "stupid star trek TV") it should at least be decent—although at that price tag you'd reasonably expect more than just decent—at everything it's meant to do of the box. She shouldn't need to constantly adjust sound volume or settings, or spend another thousand on equipment and refurbishment to access to decent sound.
In contrast, they say the old TV that's now at nan's house has much better sound (even if the screen is smaller) and are thinking of swapping the TVs since nan moved back in with my mum.
Good speakers isn't really compatible with flatness of modern tv's. You can certainly make one with good speakers, but it would look weird mounted on the wall. Buying external speakers seems like a decent tradeoff for that.
Sure, it would be nice if TVs could have good sound out of the box if that meant no other tradeoffs. But if it means making the TV thicker (and, as other comments have pointed out, it probably would) then I'd be against it, since I never use the built-in TV speaker and frankly don't think anyone should.
Honestly I think high-end TVs should just not include speakers at all, similar to how high-end speakers don't contain built-in amplifiers. Then you could spend the money saved on whatever speakers you want.
> She shouldn't need to constantly adjust sound volume or settings, or spend another thousand on equipment and refurbishment to access to decent sound.
Everyone cares about hearing the words. Those who care about hearing nuanced and buy extra sound equipment are a distinct and much much much smaller set of viewers. Yet only tha smaller set seems to be able to get decent results.
A sound bar, even though fairly bad, is still a million times better than internal speakers, and you'd need a very exotic setup to be unable to fit one.
I'm surprised given you care about audio that you can even tolerate internal speakers. I'd just not use that TV and watch wherever you have better audio.
Various sections of my screen (LG C series) are significantly thicker than 30mm.
Also - this isn’t a speaker problem this is a content problem. I watched the princess bride last week on the TV, and didn’t require captions, but I’m watching Pluribus on Netflix and I’m finding it borderline impossible to keep up without them.
Imagine if we said “hey your audio is only usable on iPhone if you use this specific adapter and high end earphones”. Somehow the music industry has managed to figure out a way to get stuff to sound good on high end hardware, and passable on even the shittiest speakers and earbuds imaginable, but asking Hollywood blockbusters to make the dialog literally audible on the most popular device format is too much?
Im a bit confused why you’re surprised to see American terminology on a site with a predominantly American user base, or why it’s worth commenting on.
That said, I’m Irish and live in the UK. You’ve never heard people say “I’ll hoover that”, or “you can google that”? Kleenex and band aid are definitely American ones but given the audience I thought it was apt
It's not even a competition, to me. I've had to use Visual Studio instead of Rider for work the past year and it's been a very bad experience.
The biggest difference is JetBrains intellisense feels like it's reading my mind, I'll just type a couple characters and hit tab most of the time. Visual studio on the other hand has the worst intellisense I can imagine. It very frequently just messes up what I'm doing - I'll write what I want correctly, hit space and VS will just change it to something entirely different and import a package while it's at it. It's incredibly annoying. And when I actually want to use auto complete, say for example I've declared a variable on the line above and I want to use it, I'll write a couple characters and then without fail the variable I just declared on the line above is like option 6 down the list behind a bunch of crap that doesn't even make sense in the context at all. And as if it wasn't enough that the IDE is crap when it's working correctly, it very frequently craps out and just stops providing syntax highlighting and such in .razor files, or showing errors in files that compile just fine, forcing me to restart it and delete the .vs folder. Like every day.
Personally I think the only people who prefer other products than JB are people who don't know what they're missing. JB is literally just better in pretty much every way. At least the products I've used. I think I'll turn down the next job that asks me to use VS.
reply