I'm staring at the EOL of Windows 10, which I use on my game machine. I'll happily get one of the cubes for my next box. I'd like this to be the end of my Windows usage.
You did say "I'd like this to be the end of my Windows usage." Even so, if you're not ready to move tomorrow, you can give up some privacy for the next year and continue to get patches by logging in to Microsoft. Windows 10 LTSC is a possibility if you somehow qualify for a license, although there's no guarantee the latest Nvidia drivers will work on it, some version of them will, or you can punt and run Linux on your current PC until the steam cube comes out. Pick a Linux distribution you like and run Steam, or go down the rabbit hole of running native Steam OS.
I personally preferred Fedora for this but mostly because my employer is a redhat shop. It's not otherwise (as far as I know) any better or worse than any other distro for gaming.
This is so much nonsense. Contracts and interfaces have little to do with OOP. If you don't like inheritance, then talk about OOP. It's fine. Many people, including myself, don't like inheritance. On the other hand, if it's interfaces and contracts that have you bothered, parse-dont-validate to your heart's content. If the domain allows it. Just don't drag unrelated concepts into this particular discussion.
OOP is about messages according to the inventor - messages are about the interface. People get confused with objects which languages without messages don't have (you can get them, but they are not first class in the language)
Even plain objects though, the point isn't the inheritance! The point is to put an interface on the data. Inheritance is sometimes useful because, but there is a reason we keep screaming "prefer composition to inheritance" (even though few listen)
Just noticed that I wasn't clear - there are languages that have OBJECTS that do not do message passing. Message passing seems to be dynamic (duck type) function calls, which is debatable if it is worth it over static typing. You can get message passing in any language, but it is a lot more work and of questionable benefit vs static interfaces (there are pros and cons)
I agree with you, that inheritance isn't all of OOP, but I think it is one of THE unique selling point of OOP. All the other things like abstraction, interfaces, encapsulation, polymorphy, etc. all exist(ed) before and without OOP.
Even with the notes, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would you illustrate communication problems with people who literally don't speak the same language?
It’s almost impossible to understand, just from looking at the comic. Some of his comics are like that.
I stared at it for quite a while, before it “clicked.”
Once it did, the message was obvious.
The PowerPoint was designed to be presented. It’s not particularly useful, just being read. It really needs a narrator that can explain the concepts.
The idea is that it’s possible to communicate effectively, even when it seems impossible, as long as we are willing to take responsibility for the message, and figure out how to make it work. In order to do that, we need to understand the message, the recipient, the context, and the medium.
It also shows how we can lose the message, when we get sidetracked by the messenger or the medium.
"Earhart planned to have human navigators on board with her, but she’d be the first female pilot to accomplish the feat." - What an odd statement. Could "male" have been replaced by "human"?
The strangest TIL for me this year is that Fred Noonan was indeed on board for the doomed flight, and he was just as lost/dead as Earhart was.
I've surely conflated Earhart with Lindbergh, who was known for his solo marathon flights, and somehow absorbed decades' worth of pop-culture "Amelia Earhart" legends that left Captain Noonan as a remarkably obscure footnote in history.
And even more interesting still were the accounts that a disastrous landing in Hawaii carried a crew of four, and her penultimate attempt had a crew of three, with an aborted takeoff that severely damaged her Electra, and the third man had refused/declined to continue as the odds were increasingly not in their favor.
Innovators like Jobs are incredibly rare. We're lucky he chose someone who would not only preserve the company, but stave off the worst of the enshittification that has eaten Microsoft and HP. Cook is also surprisingly protective of privacy and civil rights. I'll take him over 99% of executives these days.
In what sense is Cook protective of privacy and civil rights? Apple collaborates with the government to the full extent that is required to have access to their market, irrespective of privacy and civil rights implications. China, for example.
In the sense that they don't go much much further than just the bare minimum required by government regulations from the various jusrisdictions they operate in, and they don't treat this overreach as their primary profit center, thereby incentivising themselves to push it as far as they think they can get away with, the way all the other major tech companies do?
The "bare minimum" includes full support of oppressive government's surveillance and censorship requirements that target any sort of dissent, as well as handing over full unsupervised access and ownership of those citizens' data to their government.
So please spare us the PR, arguing that Apple "cares" about privacy or civil rights is dishonest. If they cared about those values they wouldn't be operating in China.
