In 2005, work began on a project headed by Andrei Zmievski to bring native Unicode support to PHP by embedding the International Components for Unicode (ICU) library and internally representing strings as UTF-16. Because this project would lead to major internal and user-affecting changes, it was planned to be the next major PHP version (i.e. PHP 6) along with a few other features.
By using UTF-16 as default encoding, developers would need to convert the code and all input (e.g. data from requests, database, etc.) from one encoding to UTF-16 and back again. This conversion takes a lot of CPU time, memory (to store the much larger strings), and creates a higher complexity in the implementation due to the increased need to detect the proper encoding for the situation. In light of all of this and the relatively small gain, many contributors became unwilling to use "trunk" as their main development branch and instead either using the stable 5.2/5.3 branches or refusing to do development at all. This shortage of developers led to delays in the project.
After a vote in July of 2014, it was officially decided that the next major release would be called PHP 7. The primary reason for even considering the name is the widely-known existence of the previous failed attempt of a new major release, and the existence of numerous books and other resources which already referred to the previous PHP 6. To address potential confusion, there was an RFC (i.e. request for comments) and a vote on whether or not to reuse this name.
In the end it was decided to release PHP 7 as the next major version, arguing that the worst case scenario is that they needlessly skipped a version as opposed to the worst case of releasing it as PHP 6 which is widespread confusion in the community.
Read the full story here: Valhalla News — From PHP 5 to 7"
Link to Original Source
The whole "needles in the eyeball" are just a stepping stone to something truly amazing.
Indeed. I was severely nearsighted all my life, after the cataract surgery I no longer need corrective lenses at all, not even reading glasses and I'm 62. My vision in that eye went from 20/400 to 20/16. Truly a miracle.
BTW, my retina surgeon said that my retinal detachment was a result of being so nearsighted; a nearsighted eyeball isn't perfectly round like a normally sighted person's eyes.
Rats are not humans.
Rats don't give a fuck about their health or physical fitness. Nor are they great at thinking long term.
As for Zucker rats... Ummm... You do know that they were DESIGNED TO BE LIKE THAT?
They are a mutation created for research purposes.
For all intents and purposes - those are not REAL RATS, any more than one could consider pekingese to be wolves.
Calories in/calories out is at best a proxy for what's really going on under the covers (ie, insulin, hormonal reasons)...
Correct premise, wrong conclusion.
It IS correct. BUT... It is not the only factor at play. And "obesity" is a generalization.
There ARE genetic or health components involved - but not in the entire population.
On average though, reducing/limiting intake and/or exercise IS equal to weight loss.
Yes, and if you look at what food items constitute 100 calories, it should become plainly obvious that human beings lack the consistency and precision in choosing food and/or exercise in order to maintain weight like we do.
Sorry, but number of calories in "some food A" is in no way in correlation with "human beings lack(ing) the consistency and precision in choosing food".
I'm not really sure what was it you tried to say there.
Also, have you ever heard the phrase "work up an appetite" what do you suppose the body's very first reaction to burning those 100 calories is?
Ever heard of the phrase "Un bon mot ne prouve rien."?
Actually... After spending 100+ calories through exercise... They probably won't be hungry.
If anything, they'll be less hungry. IF they have some extra weight. They will be thirsty, though.
I only have personal anecdotal evidence for it, sorry, but I do have a theory why it is so regarding hunger.
From fasting for 72 hours with only ~30 calories per day, and from doing 10-15 minutes of light exercise each day (to stave off muscle loss) which would cause, then relieve the sense of hunger.
My guess is that I was forcing my body to reach out for those accumulated calories. Getting it to spend those ketones in place of glucose.
I did it in order to compare it to just eating less. In short - you gain back the weight lost that way really fast.
You do feel "un-bloated" though... Empty bowels and all that.
But regardless of it... It's not about those 100 calories spent. It's only ONCE a week. Who cares about what they eat ONCE A WEEK.
It's about raising the BMR by spending those calories ON EXERCISE.
You gotta do a LOT of exercise to spend those 100 calories. Keep doing it week after week, and you got muscles which you didn't have couple of weeks ago.
You slowly start burning more even just resting. That's it.
IF you pay attention how much you eat and don't just stuff yourself, that is.
Again... anecdotal, but I've knocked down my weight from 84-85 kilograms in December to 75 in June by limiting calories and exercising.
Since then, I'm exercising less (maybe once or twice a week) and eating on average around 2000 calories (more than before), and I'm slowly moving toward 73-74 kilograms, at the moment being closer to 74-75 mark.
Being in my mid-30s it's almost EXACTLY what you would expect from the formula.
Slow, continuous loss of fat through limiting of calories and through light exercise.
It can be done faster, but then you end up buying pants more often.
Yet another issue that rats never have to face.
I'm fine with the chip; that protects me, the bank, and the retailer. I am NOT fine with the PIN. My signature can't be stolen; if someone steals my card, the signature on the sales slip proves it's not me. But if someone steals your PIN they have your every penny.
It happened to me with a debit card. I welcome the chip, but of they add a PIN I'll cancel all my cards and go back to cash and checks, even though they're nowhere as convenient.
I hadn't had any of the accounts I'd used, either, and wasn't sure which one it was. Still got the account back, give 'em a try.
I had cataract surgery on that eye two years before the retina came loose. I did know a couple of guys who had vitrectomies followed by cataract surgery, but the needles don't go through the lens, they go in through the whites (photos at wikipedia). I suspect that a vitrectomy involves steroids; steroid eyedrops for an eye infection caused my cataract.
It wasn't worth the effort, I just cut and pasted from the manuscript. It's bad enough posting journals, I take a bit more care with them.
And it was placed on the front page by the same editor, Soulskill.
Considering how long ago 1998 was, I think that it's time to start taking in account things like possible early onset senility of the editors.
in 2000 years or so
At 25 years per generation that's only 80 generations or so.
In comparison, rats reach sexual maturity after 5 weeks, gestate for 21 days, and have about 5 litters with 7-14 baby rats per litter.
That's about 6 generations of rats per year. Conservatively.
We will "evolve" in 2000 years about as much as rats "evolve" every 13-14 years.
Not squeaking much.
On the other hand, it is also optimistic considering how pessimistic people tend to be regarding our survival on this planet at all.
Which IMHO has become a ridiculous notion for quite some time now.
There's too many of us at too many places at the same time for most things to wipe us out as a species.
Many things could fuck us up significantly... say a nuclear war... but we are too dispersed to be completely wiped out by anything that would not wipe out all life on Earth almost instantly.
But people love their antiquated 19th century ideas... After all that's only about 5 generations ago.
My parents' grandparents' time. Well... except on my mom's side.
She had a grandmother who lived to be 102.
Not much room for evolution there. Of genes OR ideas.
But in 2000 years... we'll get some shit done on the ideas front. That we've shown that we are capable of.
Also why exercise leads to weight loss, since training makes muscle tissue more sensitive to insulin, and fat cells less so. Seriously the amount of calories burned through exercise is laughable.
It is... but it isn't. It adds up.
100+ calories spent through exercise once a week don't seem much on their own... BUT.
It boosts one's BMR.
So those 100+ calories spent doing exercise once a week boosts one's daily calorie requirement from those magical 2000 calories to 2290 calories.
And that adds up.
290 * 7 + 100 = 2130
That's about a pound lost (or not gained) in about 12 days. About 30 pounds in a year.
Now, sticking to one's daily calorie requirement and weekly exercise routine... that's another ball game entirely.
From your reply I can only assume that you are deliberately being dense.
I.e. You are trolling.
Or, you would not have acted like you haven't realized that when I'm talking about there being 30% more fructose, and then saying that there is 4:3 mix in favor of "sugar for later" - that I'm not talking about sucrose but of fructose as "sugar for later", i.e. FAT.
In fact, if you weren't trolling you could NEVER EVEN THINK that I was talking about sucrose, because you apparently acknowledge that you know that sucrose needs to be hydrolyzed into glucose and fructose to be used for energy by the body.
I.e. You know what I'm talking about but you still choose to be obtuse.
Nor would you spout the 1 : 1 nonsense.
HFCS 55 is a 55 : 42 fructose-glucose mix.
Which, as I've explained above, comes out to 2 : 1 ratio in consumption of fructose and glucose through HFCS, compared to 1 : 1 ratio when consuming sucrose.
Because the human body ends up eating twice as much of fructose when ingesting HFCS than when ingesting sucrose, while trying to raise the glucose in the blood to the same level.
I.e. Your brain is hungrier for glucose longer.
It wants two spoons of HFCS where a single spoon of sucrose would suffice.
But then again... you are trolling.
Or you would not equate cheap HFCS used in Coke and Pepsi with VERY EXPENSIVE insect juice used in practically NOTHING commercially - because it is expensive and not "roundup ready".
And it is also not a 55 : 43 mix, nor is it a 50 : 50 mix, but a whole other ball game which includes various antibacterial properties, a different mixture of mono- and polysaccharides and various other stuff which bees dump into their insect juice.
Which can be gleaned from the link above.
But HFCS in Coke or Pepsi is not seasonal fruit.
HFCS is a ~50/50 mix of glucose and fructose. Both of those occur naturally.
That's like saying salted almonds occur naturally.
High Fructose corn syrup is called HIGH fructose because it contains a higher concentration of fructose, not because someone thought it would be cute to be friendly to it.
It's a 55 to 42 mix for HFCS55 and 42 to 53 mix for HFCS42.
Guess which one is used in sodas? One that has 30% more fructose than glucose.
I.e. 30% more sugar that goes to fat to be used later than the sugar that goes to immediate use and into glycogen for inter-mediate use.
On top of that, fructose which occurs naturally tends to be bound to fiber, i.e. indigestible cellulose.
Which fills up your tummy sending the "I'm full" signal to the brain.
Meanwhile, fructose in sucrose is bound to glucose at 50 to 50 mix which must be broken in the body through the use of a(n) enzyme(s).
I.e. A catalyst produced by the body as a tool for speeding up and controlling the chemical reaction.
By feeding the body a blend of already hydrolyzed sugars, we are letting the chemical process in a factory somewhere predigest our food for us.
Sorta like the difference between eating baked bread and eating raw wheat.
So, we end up taking 4 molecules of "sugar for later" with every 3 molecules of "sugar now", instead of 1 molecule of "sugar for later" with every molecule of sugar for immediate use.
On top of that, 55-42 mix provides almost a fifth of "sugar now" LESS than sucrose - so to get the same glucose boost, body will take up 19% more of the the 30% enriched mix of "sugar for later".
So it ends up being not even 4 to 3 fructose to glucose mix, but a 2 to 1.
I.e. 200% to 100%, with control of absorption of sugars relegated to a factory somewhere (HFCS), instead of a 50% to 50% mix with control being done by the body (sucrose).