I worked at a countertop shop and used a sliding rule a bit. But I also used a sticky paper with marks to get measurements off my screen. A lot of blueprints provide no dimensions for cabinets and desks.

Countertops is an industry with all the modern tools but 5000yo approach.

It's the opposite experience for me. Gemini mostly produces made up and outdated stuff.

Definitely good for customers. A bit more stressful for CPT chasers and PPQA. Missing PAD time and delayed shipment is a daily issue because of 0 inventory. I wonder how they gonna change workflows for stow and pick dpts.

You can fork the source code, but you cannot fork engineers and paychecks from Google and other interested parties.

You also can't fork the update channel, so you're starting from scratch with 0 market share.

Personal experience after living in Columbus for a few months - it felt like everybody was driving drunk and/or distracted by default. Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati were not very fun to drive around and taking unprotected left turns felt like a gamble.

On the other hand, Amish communities had glass-smooth roads and people were careful when passing horse carriages.

I wish there was something like this for Salt Lake City. I have to schedule my trail runs at weird times. Otherwise you bump into people on the trail non-stop. The amount of foot traffic in the mountains is crazy all year round.

And covered by universal basic income.

> So Zig is as expressive as C++. but not only safer, but also much simpler, and compiles faster

Tbh syntax-wise Zig feels more cryptic[1] at first than C++.

[1] e.g. `extern "user32" fn MessageBoxA(?win.HWND, [*:0]const u8, [*:0]const u8, u32) callconv(win.WINAPI) i32;` from https://ziglang.org/learn/samples/

I think that's just a matter of syntax habits, presumably because you're already familiar with C++ syntax. The syntax in your example is especially "cryptic" simply because it's an FFI signature (of a function that's not written in Zig and doesn't use the normal Zig data representations).

To be clear the equivalent C++ code is:

    #include <windows.h>
    extern "C" __declspec(dllimport) int __stdcall MessageBoxA(HWND, LPCSTR, LPCSTR, UINT);
    // or
    extern "C" __declspec(dllimport) int __stdcall MessageBoxA(void *, const char[], const char[], unsigned int);

It's not exactly a stellar improvement.

Lol, no this is the equivalent

  #include <windows.h>

 int main() {
      MessageBoxA(NULL, "world!", "Hello", 0);
      return 0;
  }

There's a mention to this in the recent Selenium blog post https://www.selenium.dev/blog/2023/headless-is-going-away/#a...

Basically omit options.headless and use options.add_argument("--headless=new") instead.