We all know real programmers use butterflies.

Have you ever actually tried using Numpy in C?

You can tell how serious someone is about performance based on whether or not they bring out a profiler. If they don't use a profiler, they aren't serious about performance (or maybe they're just clueless).

What do you want to program?

Modern C++ didn't get rid of the gotchas, it just added more of them. It's fine if you're working by yourself, but you can't prescribe what features other people will use (including the writers of libraries you want to use). But old C++ was fine when working by yourself too.

You can add types to your variables in Python. You can use typescript with Javascript.

You can also introspect your types in Ruby, so his point is moot.

There is also the question of why you would add type checking to a dynamic language: if you don't want a dynamic language, why did you choose one? But the reality is most of us don't choose languages anymore, we choose libraries and have to accept whatever language they are attached to.

The author is claiming that Python is readable.

A lot of lawyers prefer checks because a signed check is proof of intention. Not only is it signed, it often has a "reason" memo written.

This can also work in behalf of the person writing the check (in court). For example, if you pay your rent by check, the landlord shows the intent to accept it when they deposit the check. Whereas if you pay with direct deposit, the landlord can claim they had no intention to accept the money.

A lot of times you can have the bank write the check and mail it for you free. Usually it's in the "bill pay" section of the UI.

It comes with nice, official (intimidating) printing. That's what I do on the rare times I need to write a check.

Didn't all of these problems come up with Google Glass over ten years ago? In fact the term "Google Glasshole" was coined for people using Google Glass to record people who didn't want to be recorded. While it is legal to film in public, they did not seem to understand why people did not like it. This user seems to fit that mold.

No but they were experimenting with germanium. My understanding is that researched stopped because while they could get better results with germanium, the problem was how to use it germanium practically as it is 1.6ppm in the Earth's crust while silicon is 282,000 ppm.

That's like the situation where one of my neighbor's dogs pooped on my lawn. Which neighbor was it? Was it the one that I see conscientiously pick up their dog's poop every time on their walks. Or the neighbor that lets their dog roam around the neighborhood with no leash? Your argument would be the conscientious one did it to frame the other neighbor. Because . . .sympathy and support? I do not believe Europe needs any more justification for sympathy and support for Ukraine.

Consider Russia indiscriminately attacks civilian targets, I would bet Russia hitting it by accident or on purpose. It is hard to know at this point.

One major difference, assuming you've got full platform support(should be the case on any server or workstation that isn't an utter joke; but can be a problem with some desktop boards that 'support' ECC in the sense that AMD didn't laser it off the way Intel does; but don't really care); is that ECC RAM can (and should) report even correctable errors; so you get considerably more warning than you do with non-ECC RAM.

If you pay no attention to error reports ECC or non-ECC are both rolling the dice; though ECC has better odds; but 'proper' ECC and Linux-EDAC support will allow you to keep an eye on worrisome events(normally with something like rasdaemon, not sure what other options and preferences there are in terms of aggregating the kernel-provided data) and, unless the RAM fails particularly dramatically and thoroughly, will give you much better odds of knowing that you have a hardware problem while that problem is still at correctable levels; so you can take appropriate action(either replacement, or on the really fancy server systems, some 'chipkill'-like arrangement where the specific piece of DRAM that is failing gets cut out of use when deeemed unreliable without having to bring the system down.

No what that means is higher production costs do not necessarily map 1:1 to higher price in the end product in every instance. Sometimes the cost is eaten by the manufacturer in terms of profit. Sometimes the manufacturer can change the product to offset the increased cost. For example, cheaper materials, cheaper labor, etc. Now I am not saying they are good changes but that would be one way higher production cost is not passed onto the consumer directly in terms of price.

While the article focuses specifically on memory prices, the AI boom could also cause PC CPU and GPU prices to go up which affects everyone. Currently fabrication at TSMC and Samsung are limited with companies like NVidia and AMD booking orders years in advance. To chase profits, NVidia and AMD will shift more of their orders to AI chips if they haven't already done so. That means fewer consumer CPUs and GPUs and thus higher prices for consumers as there may be shortages.