You reply to the post you want charted using a specific form of words, and the 'bot sees that, prepares and uploads the chart, then replies to you with a link to it.
I don't know what you mean by "support transitions".
The cozy web relies on "(human) protocol of everybody cutting-and-pasting bits of text, images, URLs, and screenshots across live streams", hopefully one day changing "from cut-and-paste to a personal blockchain of context-permissioned, addressable, searchable, interlinked clips"
Almost all modern statically typed languages have closures, higher-order functions/methods, lazy streams, and combinators that run efficiently. Persistent/immutable data structures can be implemented even in C.
Also, OCaml has no tracking of side-effects (like in Haskell), and the language and the standard library have lots of features and functions with mutation, such as the array update syntax, mutable record fields, Hashtbl, and the regex module.
The only thing that makes OCaml more “functional” than e.g. Dart, Java, or Rust is that it supports tail calls. While having tail calls is important for functional programming, I would happily give up on tail calls if that means not having the problems listed above.
When you mix imperative and functional styles tail calls become less important. For example, I don’t have to implement a stream map function in Dart with a tail call to map the rest of the stream, I can just use a while or for loop.
In my opinion there is no reason to use OCaml in a new project in 2023.
You might want to make it clearer that this is a literal quote from the last paragraph of the article. Are you posting this because you agree/disagree?
Creating a custom engine is a big endeavour and not many are ready for that. I recognize Unity (and Unreal to less extent) have really democratized video game development. Lots of small-medium size companies can use Unity today to develop games quickly, and sometimes, with very low budgets! But, still, lots of big companies prefer to rely on their own custom technologies.
I feel that people today overestimate how difficult it is to create a game engine, or maybe they underestimate the other aspects of game development.
For clarity, I mean here a basic engine (for example, a custom engine for a 2D game), not a photorealistic and generic 3D game engine like Unity (that definitely is very difficult and probably not worth reinventing the wheel without a good reason).
I am glad to see the Gravity SUV moving forward so quickly in its development, as it builds upon everything this organization has achieved so far and moves forward the advancements of their in-house tech to make a luxury electric SUV like no one else.
Twitter has the advantage of huge entrenchment of many communities for a lot of use cases, and a lack of good competitors. I do not believe that a decentralized alternative is likely to take their place.
The fact it's decentralized isn't the issue. Everything is decentralized if you look close enough. It's jure pure network effects. Twitter has like 20 competitors right now and none of them is outshining the rest, including Mastodon. This confuses people and makes them stay at Twitter.
If there was JUST Mastodon, and one decent client for each platform... well... there wouldn't be Twitter anymore.
One note: I've noticed turning off this feature does not immediately turn off the feature. A browser restart (all instances) is required to take full effect (and stop sending traffic to that endpoint). Also keep an eye on the toggle--Microsoft Edge does not guarantee settings persist across updates.
>Microsoft Edge does not guarantee settings persist across updates. //
This sort of behaviour, which Firefox had indulged in in the past, is abhorrent. It needs punishment of the company and the controlling staff; they can not be trusted at all.
It’s probably a good idea to disable Edge...That is, stop using Edge (or Chorme), and start using an alternative browser...like Firefox. /s
More seriously, I wish there was a web browser built in a sort of cameleon fashion:
* layer 1 - the lowest layer would be some weird rotating engine that would use different browser engines to send disinformation to all websites, web apps. For example, at one moment websites see that i'm on FF, but the next moment on a version of (fake) "Chrome", etc. But, functionality, the user is unaware of what engine is actually driving the typical underlying browser processes.
* layer 2 - the middle layer would hold my personal/private data, like saved passwords, cookies that i desire, etc. This layer is in total control of the user and their data. Whatever configs and preferences are set by the user are saved in this layer, and it persists across browser upgrades, browser synching platforms (like Firefox Accounts), etc.
* layer 3 - is what the user sees as browser UI (the original term was "browser chrome" of coiurse), and interacts with the UX features...The user can use 1 of a few UI themes: 1 that "looks" like Firefox, another that looks like Chrome, another looks like Brave, Edge, etc. On top of these "browser skins", there could also be the typical browser-brand-specific themes that each native browser has available.
I should state that i know nothing about how browsers are developed...And I acknowledge from my armchair that the above would make developing a new browser crazy complex...but, wow, such flexibility i think would be pretty neat!
