The movies that draw people into those experience are already high budget and even at smaller budgets 8K cameras and tech are widely accessible. Also as we talk here about Netflix obviously the business model of recouping a films budget at the box office isn't really true anymore. It's not the budget of the films thats at issue, its really just the business model of the theater chains.

Really in the last thread I talked about how we need a Paramount Decree for streaming, a separation between the production and distribution and ironically it's probably true that the opposite for actual theaters is true now. I think Disney now owns a few movie theaters and that's probably how they stay alive, instead of this money split between theaters and studios theaters will be a collaborative event function, the theater really has to make enough to keep itself profitable, not the entire chain of things and the studio isn't really looking at the box office as it's be all end all, it's more an event, the bread and butter is streaming but its a choice for the viewer.

As an example I think we've seen those replays of older films in the theater be popular so there is a demand there for the experience, people still like to go the movies but the value proposition is out of whack and the business model is outmoded.

Read my post again. You didn't understand it.

My son works for his high school newspaper. He brought in a battery powered Panasonic cassette recorder to do interviews, complete with the cheesy chrome microphone it came with. It got people more interested in the interviews and he got some good copy out of them. He also brought in a portable typewriter we found on the side of the road being thrown away. He fixed it up and uses it to type notes in newspaper class. Everyone in that class loves it.

It's probably more the case that theaters don't go away but continue to consolidate and move to the IMAX model of fewer theaters but the ones left are higher end. It can better justify the high cost and are really capable of offering an experience beyond what you can get at home.

The variability of the experience despite the prices continue to rise adds to this effect, the AMC with the smaller screens and standard seats and at least around me I think the sound is always too soft (audio is just so subjective too so theaters are probably yoyo-ing the levels all the time) I'll just as soon stay home.

A massive screen with a booming Atmos sound system and nice seating, that's more an experience. Might do it a few times a year instead a couple times a month like the olden days but that's a different business model, one where your theater is 30-60 minutes away instead of always having one nearby.

You don't think there's a geopolitical difference between the destruction of a non-operating pipeline in the middle of the ocean and a worldwide famous site of the worst nuclear accident in history, which threatened the entire region and planet in worldwide scandal? One that's on land within hundreds of miles of several EU nations and others? One that's a two hour drive from their nations largest city and capital and the site where there is a "Monument to Those Who Saved the World"?

Lets put on our detective hats. Nordstream there's a motive; destroying it denies future oil revenue to Russia. The motive to throw a bomb onto the shelter of Chernobyl? Somehow get more money from Europe? Because Europe just isn't motivated enough, they need the threat of nuclear disaster? A threat which already exists BTW?

Last I checked Ruby execution was slow compared to Python. That, however, tells you where you shouldn't use it, not *that* you shouldn't use it. And Ruby can easily call C routines (with the usual caveats).

OTOH, in some task spaces, design in Ruby is fast compared to design in Python, and in almost all it's fast compared to design in C. (That said, I generally prefer to design in Python and then re-implement in C++.)

Whether it's serious or not depends on what you're doing. For me it fails only because I require Doxygen compatibility. (Mind you, I would rarely choose to use *only* ruby, but for some things it would be the superior choice.)

OTOH, Ruby is not a low level choice. It's a slightly higher level than Python. And I often design things in Python and then convert them to C++ (with, of course, minor rewrites).

So, "What do you mean by 'serious'?".

This is like claiming that cancer doesn't exist. It's total sophistry.

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.