It’s also important to note that you might come out ahead in learning those abstract concepts using a harder language.

I agree that you will learn more abstract concepts with more low level languages, but they are often not necessary. See Scala, beautiful language, lot’s of fancy subtle computer science concepts, and a plummeting popularity since its main popularizer, Apache Spark, implemented a Python API.

Development environment is a mess, but given its popularity, it’s not difficult to find an up to date tutorial. Then it is the easiest I think, you will be able to try programming basics and get a minimum viable product (small web app, small analytics…) easlier than with any other language.

Some people think that because Python is the easiest language to learn, it’s going to be easy to learn programming with Python. But learning programming is still very hard, so many abstract concepts to grasp. Python just makes it a tiny less hard, almost insignificantly now that we can use an LLM to learn the syntax faster than than ever.

Just a mistake I made, from the “-ist” often used for politics.

Everything is opened, so I guess someone could make an app for it. Downvotes is more complicated, it’s not openly shared, I think you have to be an instance admin and be willing to find them in your instance database.

Basic mental health config for a non tankist user of Lemmy is to block hexbear, lemmygrad and lemmy.ml instances first. Then, any user from there that you will see calling nazis anyone who don’t think like them.
I almost left Lemmy thinking it was a tankist shithole before understanding the pattern.
Then it gets back to the average former-Reddit techie activist, which is still pretty left.

Nope, same and never heard others talking about it in real life. I’m guessing there is some design issues in the American toilets that is not a problem in Europe. Or it’s the large portions of low quality food?

Some projects are spun out from major corporations.

This is most of the FOSS projects in data engineering and data science. They come from tech giants or some dudes who just left tech giants to create a FOSS tool with a paid managed version, and those may get bough back by other tech giants later.

Example:

Analytics and AI giant Databricks reportedly paid nearly $2 billion when it acquired Tabular in June, a startup that was only doing $1 million in annual recurring revenue, according to Bloomberg. That’s a pretty outrageous exit multiple, and it was purportedly fueled by a battle between Databricks and Snowflake.

Tabular had over $30 million in funding, backed by Altimeter Capital, Andreessen Horowitz and Zetta Venture Partners, when it was acquired just three years after it was founded. Tabular’s valuation was tied to Apache Iceberg, a popular open source table format that the startup’s founders created while at Netflix. The startup quickly became an expensive pawn in the war between Databricks and Snowflake.https://techcrunch.com/2024/08/14/databricks-reportedly-paid-2-billion-in-tabular-acquisition/

I bet he has a Steve Ballmer like thinking “Linux is cancer” and cannot think beyond his preconceptions.

I think the only way is to reduce oil dependency. As long as it exists, people will exploit the dependency for economical and political advantage.

The one from Total lately is more subtle: climate change is real and humans cause it, but there’s still an increasing demand for fossil fuel, so we answer it (would rather buy more from the Russians?), by opening new wells we keep it affordable for the people (do you want yellow jackets again?).

Still better than an industrial snack, don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. If you already have illuminated all these snacks and other sweetened products from your diet, I think you’re doing pretty great. Before that, it seems a bit silly to worry about fruits being too sweet.

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Could you quote the articles? I read them and couldn’t find the data that backs your claim. But maybe I missed it. As the person making the claim, it is your job to demonstrate it.

Ok, I got time to read it. Drones are only mentioned in one paragraph of the conclusion. Here it is:

‘Eco-friendly’ fireworks, which do not use perchlorate and have lower levels of heavy metals, do exist (Fan et al. 2021); the problem lies in their higher cost of manufac- turing (Palaneeswari and Muthulakshmi 2012). The future of ‘firework’ displays may lie in the use of drones or unmanned aerial vehicles. Drones and visible-wavelength lasers for light shows have the benefit of being reusable, have no emissions, and are quiet (Daukantas 2010; Zerlenga et al. 2021). Drones come with their own issues for wildlife, however, usually flying at low altitudes where there are most likely to come into contact with wildlife; a review indicated that many taxa react negatively to the presence of a drone (Rebolo-Ifrán et al. 2019). Even so, drone light shows are less likely to disturb animals, wild or domestic, with noise, nor do they deposit large amounts of pollutants.

The use of drones is an opening hypothesis, not the subject of the study. Impact of drones is not quantified, it is hypothesized to be lower. The linked papers that I have also checked also don’t quantify the impact but similarly mention it as a potential eco-friendly alternative.

Would you have a different reading of this article?

My mistake, I read the abstract too fast and too late, let me read it and get back to you.

No you don’t, that’s for fireworks, now we need the impact of drone shows to answer the problem. Would you have it?

Edit: I was wrong, it does mention drones.
Edit2: After proper reading. It only mentions it as an opening hypothesis in its conclusion. It does not quantify the impact of drones, which is what we need to understand if they are actually more eco-friendly.

Absolutely, fireworks also have emission in their while life cycle, so let’s get the data and compare. EVs are not zero emission and offsetting is not zeroing emission, it’s just compensation, pollution is still being produced and if everyone does that we will not reduce it. In fact EVs sometimes have higher emissions than thermic card at fabrication, but it has been demonstrated that they emit less during their full lifecycle.

I am not saying they are better. I am questioning if they are. Please don’t mistake my question as veiled disagreement, I am not a Xitter user. Someone claimed an objective opinion, and that supposed to have data and a study to back it, but there likely isn’t any yet. I am open to the possibility, I just want to make sure it is actually more ecological. It is objectively demonstrated for electric cars vs thermic cars, for fireworks vs drone show, it probably isn’t yet.

Zero emission at use, not at fabrication, probably not when recharging and not as electronic waste at the end. Yes, I am being serious, considering only emission during usage is a very limited view of what carbon footprint is. A view that is often used by companies for green washing. Do you also believe electric cars are zero emissions? Considering full life, knowing which one emits more is not trivial.