Usually each time the is loaded, though it's also possible to decompress during installation. Decompressing onto disk makes game installs bigger. Decompressing during level load gives the CPU something to do. Compressed assets on disk mean less to load on slower IO devices.

JavaScript is dynamic but runs a lot faster than your model would imply. Turns out it's possible, albeit difficult, to make such languages run fast.

Yeah. That stuff was fixed in Windows 7, which needed less ram and used it more efficiently (you can't easily bring down 7 by running a bunch of copies of notepad like you can with vista). RAM requirements dropped significantly for Windows 8 too, partly the result of having to make it run on low end phones.

It's true that vista was released on machines that couldn't run it well. But it was also, genuinely, a memory hog. It loaded lots of services on startup, for features that weren't in constant use. And its window compositor held every pixel of every open window in system memory. Windows 7 fixed both those problems (and also machines were bigger by the time it came out).

There isn't a finite supply of US Dollars in the same way that there is of Bitcoin. The U.S. Federal Reserve can print as much money as it likes, and banks create money too. In contrast ~83% of all Bitcoins there will ever be already exist. It's true that printing too much money could devalue the currency or cause undesirable levels of inflation - people argue all the time how much it _should_ print - but the fact remains that it can print any number.

Rust's type checker is a static analysis. It's pretty much state-of-the-art.

Well not meaningless but the situation is indeed more complicated than computable or not computable. Any static analysis needs to complete in the amount of time you're prepared to wait for it, or it's not very practical. Indeed, Rust's type checker is often criticised for being slow.

Have you improved static checking and/or theorem proving? If not, what's your excuse?

Interesting. Since architecture and infrastructure play big roles in the ability to respond to change, your post made me wonder:

* Could you have designed the circuit as two or more smaller circuits?
* Did the tests you created earlier on enable you to make changes later on?

I'd argue they want the lowest amount of perceived risk. And that this often leads to bad outcomes in software development. This is why the signatories suggested,

While it's often true that collaboration "just isn't going to happen" in many situations, outcomes would often be better if collaboration did, in fact, occur. The way some gigs are set up it hard for them to succeed.

I agree with you that agile processes can work in regulated environments.

I just wanted to note, out of interest, that the original agile manifesto isn't very explicit about the continual improvement you mentioned. To be fair, the manifesto is very short (it's done and valuable, albeit not perfect). The closest part is this:

That's at the beginning of the document but it doesn't make explicit the fact that the uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it is one of the core tenets.

The scenario you asked about is what the poster imagines might happen in an organisation that valued documentation more than working code. The poster is arguing the Agile Manifesto position - that a working software product is more important than a documented product - is the only reasonable one. It does this imagining the absurd situation that might occur if documentation was valued more than code.

Dude, python2?

This python version is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PYTHON VERSION!!

I hear the windmills supplying Manhattan are likely to be mainly offshore. It require some work to get the electricity back on shore.

TL;DR: Ponzi schemes and stocks aren't the same

The main difference between a Ponzi scheme and regular stocks is that you're likely to lose your money if you invest in a Ponzi scheme, whereas, on average, you'll make money investing in stocks. Another difference is that a Ponzi scheme claims that it is not a Ponzi scheme, whereas a stock is quite clear that it's a stock.

How would it actually help with those things? Is there something the blockchain would do better than alternatives?

If you can solve your problem with Python, then you should. Rust is for when you would otherwise have to use C. Until the invention of Rust, there were many situations where you had to use C and, therefore risked security vulnerabilities due to its lack of memory safety. Even today, there are situations where you have to use C.