Lies.. European market is the second biggest one, accounting for 25% the company's revenue in 2023.

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/apple-statistics/

"Let's please stop arguing about the image now*, and move on to more interesting points."

That's rude. Let's not confuse Hackenews with a ChatGPT prompt.

It's time to admit that we don't need to work more than 3 days a week to be happy.

There are treatments that are very effective for treating psoriasis, especially those based on monoclonal antibodies. I was treated for atopic dermatitis (which is a similar disease), and I have been in near remission for several years. However, the treatment is very expensive.

Certainly, but the use case mentioned here is not related to a performance issue. It's more about syntactic sugar when a user writes SQL in interactive mode to explore data.

Yes, that's true. After all, it's the functionality that is important, regardless of the means to achieve it. On the other hand, the fact that it is part of the syntax has other advantages: - it makes the functionality independent of the querying tool used - it is immediately understandable, and easy to use - it can be offered by automatic completion and therefore have a higher discoverability power than a function that would be hidden in the editor

It would be really great if other languages could adopt this idea in their versioning system.

I'm currently designing a programming language, and I just might adopt something like this for it.

Just for full disclosure: I removed the mention of ChatGPT.

I am the author of the post. The reason is that English is not my native language, and summarizing is very resource-consuming for me, much more than if I had to do it in my native language. But I take note of the antagonistic aspect and I will make sure to rewrite the summary ;)

FWIW, I'm a native English speaker and I've used ChatGPT to copy edit my own text to good effect, as well as both summarising and expanding on topics. If it helps you, I hope you don't feel the need to avoid using a useful tool.

If it's causing issues, you can remove mentions of it (I know there's also a desire to call out when it's not your own words entirely though). I'd only feel the need to explicitly say it was from a model if I'd not reviewed it - to make sure if it said something wrong it was clear to readers I'd not approved it.

I'd like it if it was more accepted though and it's a shame this has come up as a discussion.

Well you should know that you're writing is just fine as it is! Definitely understand and appreciate your motives here either way. I don't agree with the fellow commenters that this alone is enough to dismiss the entire thing, its not that big of a deal one way or another.

I think at this point we should quantify the proportion of "inflationary" updates (i.e. those that bring absolutely nothing in terms of functionality or security) versus real updates.

Let's take a fictional example: I import D3.js to use the parseDSV() function, after 2 years the method has not received any updates, but the package has gone from version 1.0.2 to 5.0.2. With a granular system, my function would still be on version 1.0.2 (because no changes were made), but with the current system I would have received an unnecessary update.

So, in this case, granular versioning would actually help to put an end to the chaos of dependencies.

Wouldn't there be a bunch of releases with newer numbers? Or would that function maintain a module number of 1, while other functions in the same file would have updated to 2,4,5?