I wasn't suggesting the sugar industry is behind this one, but asking the general question of how do we know there isn't someone funding the results they want.
Even 1 bike per year isn't that bad if you have insurance, car maintenance + depreciation is probably more. Not to mention when your catalytic converter gets stolen.
Sorry for hijacking your response but I have a question that you might know the answer to: how did using compilers work back in the punch card days?
Say I write a deck of FORTRAN code. What do I do with it next? Do I stack the a deck of cards labelled "FORTRAN COMPILER" and append my stack of code and a card printer pops out cards punched out with machine code?
On the IBM 1401, there wasn't an operating system so compiling a program was like you said: you put a stack of cards with the compiler and your program in the card reader. The compiler ran in literally 63 phases since there wasn't enough memory to do very much at one time. Compilation took about 3 minutes plus .76 seconds per statement. Your executable got punched onto a stack of cards that you could then run.
Things were faster if you had a tape drive. Your source code would normally be on cards, but the compiler would be on tape.
Other comments described a later system such as the IBM System/360, where you had an operating system so you could use a card specifying Fortran compilation and you were set.
If no one reply you on that old machine I can answer for ibm machine which still use card reader concept in its jcl card deck.
The cards you put up with has two //
These are you control cards
One of these will be program card
The next card with dd * you will be your program
...
You could do just that, but the usual way was to put a single "control card" that invoked the FORTRAN compiler before you own code. This invoked a compiler that was already stored in the system, on tape or disk.
The computer center had stacks of control cards for different functions like this - they were color coded - so you had to remember to get a pink card and put it before your program deck.
It was possible to punch a binary output deck of your compiied program or even store it on disk or tape - there were different control cards for that.
Writing high level game logic in Rust is not fun, you spend more time waiting for compilation and dealing with language problems than real game dev fun.
Bevy is the nicest ECS I've tried yet you can prototype something much faster in JS. And prototyping is the fun part.
After 2ys doing rust all I can say is that it is nice as long as you know exactly what you want to do. And you often hit the wall because rust is still very young and there are not many libraries.
And more you know rust and do advanced stuff the more you hit bugs & unfinished things in rust itself. And I can tell you it's really hard to swallow when you need to redo something for the third time just because you are ahead (and nightly doesn't really help, sometimes it just opens another bag of bugs because those new features do not work together)
Try doing some GUI in rust, there's literally nothing complete right now, druid & iced are the most promising ones but still far from production-ready.
At face value, their attempts to defend the Recurse Center are largely backfiring. It makes the Recurse Center seem harsher and stricter than even a traditional university course. And references to it being a "scene" makes me think that the "scene" feels really pretentious and exclusive rather than inclusive.
Poor wording on my part. NYC is full of different scenes/social circles, clubs, programs, so on and so forth. There is a flakiness (in my opinion) that often accompanies people that try out lots of different things.
For a program like RC, having people join and drop out or decide to only show up for a few days a week or whatever directly cheapens the experience for others and damages the community and serendipity and mood that arises when you have a bunch of smart, dedicated, and focused people there.
My belief (and I emphatically am not staff, just an alum with opinions) is that they want to make absolutely sure people are committed. They also want to make absolutely sure everybody is getting the same start.
I'm trying to run through this exercise right now. Is it bad to have too many adverbs at one time? Whatabout adverbs that might contradict? Or is it fine to just get a few, no matter the contradictions and not overthink it?
The version of the exercise I gave was extremely abbreviated - it's a web forum, after all! - so it's necessarily stripped of a lot of detail and context. In a real engagement with a patient, I'd have addressed questions like yours right out of the gate. So apologies. (I hope you see this!).
The short answer to all of them is: it's just fine! The purpose here isn't to get a highly formal, systematic, rigid "code of action" that you live by strictly like some kind of Roman philosopher (though that stuff is incredibly interesting, and ACT has debts to much of it). Instead, the purpose of the values thing is to assist in being able to respond flexibly to pain and suffering while committing to some of the things you find most meaningful - things that are larger than yourself that you can serve.
Is it bad to have too many adverbs? Heavens, no. This is an iterative process, so if the first thing that comes out of your head is a tsunami of possible values, that's terrific. What I might recommend next is to quickly rank-order them based on a simple gut feeling of which ones really interest you right now, these days.
Contradictory adverbs: I don't want to sound glib, but I'll say it anyway: you're human! Of course you'll have contradictory values. That's okay. Since the entire point of ACT is to "act" (heh) in the world, to live these values in some way, however modestly, the contradictions don't necessarily matter so much if, in picking one in one instance and trying to act on it somehow, you walk away from the situation with a feeling of "I'm uncomfortable because this clashes a bit with other things I find important, but I know that I didn't act purposelessly back there" - if that makes any sense.
So basically your suspicions in your last question are correct: just get a few, don't overthink it, go out there and try to live them or instantiate them in some way (doesn't matter how small!), and then return to reflect on how that went. It might be that, in acting on some value, you find that actually you don't believe in it that deeply, or it's not really truly you, or whatever, and you can drop it and try the next one out. Like I said, this is an iterative, lifelong process, and it's mutable and it'll change and grow and go in different, surprising directions. The point isn't to do this exercise once -- it's to begin doing it on and off for the rest of your life, in the same way that a navigator keeps looking up at the night sky and keeping an eye on Polaris every now and then.
I hope this was somewhat helpful to you. I'll keep an eye on this thread if you have any more questions.
In most (all?) universities/colleges in America a double major doesn’t cost extra financially. You might have to give up taking more electives in one or the other programs however.
Yeah I can't speak to other Uni's but I went to a very large school in VA, and we had plenty of extra credits for electives. With a some creative picks, and a couple of summer courses taken for fun, I was able to tack on a 2nd major and a minor.
Disclaimer: I was former military and had a GI bill, plus a job with reasonably flexible hours while in school. This might not be a universal case for folks with lots of loans in an isolated college town.
"Starting with the latter, in 2011-12, 61A will be taught by John DeNero (fall) and Paul Hilfinger (spring) using lecture notes based on SICP (since its text is now available on the web with a Creative Commons license that permits such use) but with the program examples recoded in Python. This is, on its face, a strange idea; Scheme and SICP build on each other's strengths and programming in Python as if it were Scheme will surely result in some of the examples looking unlike the way a native Python speaker would code them. But the long-term plan is that over time, the 61A curriculum will gradually change to include "more modern" ideas, leaving out some of the SICP ones to make room; because of its huge collection of application libraries, the new ideas will be more easily expressed in Python than in Scheme. Also, there is currently a vibrant open-source project community using Python, and 61A students can be introduced into that community."
