Except the part where where alcohol metabolizes into aldehyde species which cause double strand DNA breaks faster than we can repair them and we get moderate cancers ... but other than that it is great (ignoring the behavioral aberrations).
A step further "novel" life (hence still simpler) made from the same raw materials as existing life would look exactly like decomposing existing life and be routinely scavenged for material.
I think you are reading something into my post that isn't there. You surely do not believe I am arguing that Python is a shell language without tradeoffs.
Of the languages listed in GP, only Python and JavaScript are scripting languages with REPLs like Bash. Of those two, Python is far more serviceable for what one uses bash for, even in embedded applications (with MicroPython).
Perl, Awk, Ruby, and Lua are also scripting languages one can use in the course of OS scripting. (Your distro probably uses some combination of these, including Python.) Of these, at least Ruby can also be used as a shell.
> Pray tell which one of the myriad is the true one?
You've basically got it, that's just `which python`
I use Python for longer scripts where script maintainability is a priority and external libraries are unnecessary, and as a general shell when I also want my shell to be a calculator, especially when computing on a smartphone (with an appropriate pythonrc).
The key thing is that I already know Python and I find Python's warts more palatable than those on Bash.
I think the point was that Python, as a language and ecosystem, has experienced a number of breaking changes over the years. In practice, that means code written only a few years ago may no longer run without specific versions of Python and a collection of dependencies, many of which have since been replaced by newer, incompatible implementations.
What I appreciate about the traditional shell languages is their remarkable stability. Shell scripts written in 2000, or even earlier, are often still able to run today with little or no modification. By contrast, Python applications frequently require recreating a historical runtime environment, including older language versions and dependencies, many of which have accumulated significant security vulnerabilities over time.
Interestingly, apart from the various shell languages, Perl is probably one of the strongest alternatives in this regard. The Perl community has placed a high value on backward compatibility, allowing older code to continue functioning while the language itself remains actively maintained and up to date.
I basically agree with these tradeoffs (you should never be pulling in dependencies outside the builtins), but let's look back to GP:
> Comparing the shell to C, Go, Rust, Python, or JavaScript is crazypants. It has a different job than those, so of course it will look and feel different!
The point was just a small one, that Python is not like the others. C, Go, and Rust do not come with REPLs. Node is plausible to use as an OS shell but I've never heard of anyone doing that. Python is the only one of those I've used as a shell or have heard of others using as a shell.
Again, I'm not advocating for Python as a good general-purpose shell. I'm only making the small claim that C, Go, Rust, and (to a smaller extent) JavaScript cannot be be used like bash. Python could be used as a shell.
>Strikingly, the sedentary element of TV watching didn’t appear to be the main driver for these changes.
>Those who reported high amounts of sitting at work actually had larger frontal and occipital lobes, as well as reduced white matter hyperintensity volumes, indicating better brain health than among those who sit to watch TV. This could be due to the intellectually stimulating nature of many sit-down jobs, say the study authors.
It is not as though other countries could not choose do the same.
It seem to me that China choosing to subsidize industry it is not so different than the US choosing to subsidize Roads, Autos and OIL.
In both cases it does seem to work splendidly as intended.
Other than political inertia (or economic reasons far beyond my ability to fathom) there is nothing to stop the US from following suit.
I accept "free market" is a term of art probably from before global trade reality and could be narrowly redefined to mean whatever one wants (or wanted when it was coined) but in my ignorance I see it simply as free to choose actions and responses.
But I am far far away from opinions I am qualified to hold,
think I will shut up now.
I think even the Chicago school would agree that roads should be public
> autos
I absolutely detest US policy with respect to autos so I will not refute this
> oil
Matter of strategic importance that isn’t related to spying or subterfuge. The Nazis probably would have won WWII if they hadn’t run out of diesel. I’m not sure digital cameras come close to this.
But you could imagine a country that invested, in addition to roads, cars, and oil, in public transportation, cities that you can get around on foot, and in renewable energy. Such a country might be better off that the US is now.
Not everyone wants public transport. I never use it. Don’t like being so close to other people. And it is much more expensive where I live. Four friends going for a day trip to the big city is €120+ by train and bus.
Had another look. It’s €265 just for the four train tickets alone, in the lowest class. €375 if you want to travel in comfort class. Two hour journey.
You could imagine that this wasn’t the case, right? Or you could imagine that investing in it for those people who do want it might improve your own life (e.g. by reducing traffic) not to mention society as a whole?
I think the overwhelming and undeniable success and prosperity of China is the biggest concern to the west, the neoliberals consistently predicted their immediate downfall that never came. Except we are all still led by the same neoliberals proven wrong about everything, the contradictions everywhere are driving us all into collective insanity. If we don't manage to purge our media and governments from these vile people the only path forward is collective decline, increased totalitarianism and our repression leading to a war with China. Wars don't always end in the right side winning, and the cold war was won by the wrong side.
glow in the dark jelly fish bits that biologist stick in other critters to see if, when and where it shows up (under a blacklight).
reply