Webassembly is a thing where ideally you would compile it before you upload it to the server. The tools to compile javascript etc into webassembly are not clear or easy to use at this point. Also for a while, the webassembly implementations seemed rather incomplete with basic features such as access to browser APIs seemingly unavailable or difficult to use with confusing as hell documentation.

Basically its a good idea since if you can precompile it will make the stuff run faster and allow for a range of other languages to be used for web programming rather than just Javascript without the messy solution of compiling some other language to Javascript.

Webassembly is a good idea but known for a half baked implementation and the need for more compilers to support it.

On one hand, this is a good thing, because its a complete and total repudiation of the profits first corporate mentality in so many american companies that is destroying america economically. People have to understand to make a stock a good value you have to put engineers and worker well being first and its better to have something which ensures long term viability rather than short term super profits. The mentality of wall street today is parasitic in the mentality of buying a company, bleeding it dry and then discarding the carcass. They are flies feeding on a corpse. It is hard to defend something so destructive, pernicious and has no value to civilization.

The article sounds like it was written by some people who don't really know much about programming, such as middle managers who read too many magazines about the subject but are not heavily hands on involved with it.

The field has always had many different platforms, and have long been frameworks, going back to the old mainframe days when each mainframe platform had its own peculiarities and the various early languages such as COBOL, FORTRAN, PL/I, each mainframes assembly code and then various frameworks often unique to a computer like CICS on IBM. These often had a terrible learning curve with mind boggling cryptic syntax that could be much worse than todays frameworks.

So, things are not really worse today than they were back then. They may actually be better.

Secondly, what I have seen, is 90% of joining an organization is learning the architecture of their own programs, not learning the platform that they use, since these days platforms often are similar to one another. Learning a new programming language, is not like learning a human language, it can be done in a matter of days. Most knowledge is portable from one to another, because there are many similarities. And, in programming, you dont have to memorize all the verbs and nouns, and you really can't, because the APIs are so large, so your using documentation anyway as you write code to call functions. This is also way "experience with X platform" is sort of nonsense. First there have long been many platforms, too many for everyone to have experience with them all, but also that learning a new platform can be a minor part of becoming acclimated to an organizations code environment considering much of it will be the architecture of their programs, rather than the language they used.

Some software, where a complex algorithm is involved, or which is a large system, is going to end up with complexity. What is particularly vital is documenting everything, both to describe individual sections of code, and also how the entire system fits together, execution and code flow paths, etc.

On the subject of OOP, it can help keep code modular and simpler. I view the defining characteristic of OOP is variables and functions in a structure. You can actually do it in C, but its obtuse, OOP is basically syntax sugar to make it more elegant. Unfortunately some peoples perceptions of OOP has been influenced by C++, and not, say Python. C++ with how many C++ books give the impression templates, polymorphism are essential to OOP make it seem like an overly complex thing which in fact these elements are not essential to the concept, and can be avoided entirely, and are in fact rarely or never used in Python. At its core OOP is simple, and its quite something that such a simple idea can become seen as complex, due to it being associated with C++ ways of teaching it which make it seem more complex than it really is.

Allegedly simpler languages are not better. C is seen by some as simpler than C++, but its type system is a cause of vulnerabilities and errors rather than vice versa because they are length based not value range based, leading to overruns. The lack of an easy to use automatic memory management system like Python makes it much more of a chore to write software. So, features can actually greatly increase code simplicity. As far as types, I think in some cases class types and value range types might be worth but also can be more trouble than its worth in cases. Python generally has little use of types and works fine, and is significantly safer than C anyway.

OOP is an enhancement of procedural programming. At its core its syntax sugar to make putting variables and functions into a single structure more readable. I really think its a result of misunderstanding that something which is basically simple and elegant could be seen as complex. You can actually do OOP in C, but its a little bit ugly and gives code a cluttered look. I view functions and variables in a structure the defining feature of OOP. The problem comes when people think it must include the use of templates, polymorphism, the way C++ does it, but thats not really essential to OOP and could be completely avoided, but thats what I think makes OOP seem "complex" even though they are not essential, and not even used normally in languages like Python. Good programming means knowing when and when it is not best to use a feature and knowing that a feature being there doesn't mean its best to use it in every situation.

The building appears to be depersonalizing, dehumanizing and degrading. This guy funds buildings and then insists on designing them himself to foist his abusive ideas on people. Sounds like a psychopathic control freak.

The UK has extremely good sequencing so its possible that its growing also in the US but that the US sequencing system in the US, which is a joke, is not picking it up.

At this point if we were smart we would invest in beefing up the mRNA production systems to produce a huge quantity of updated mRNA variant boosters in a short period of time should it be necessary to do to so. We also in the US need a huge upgrade to sequencing and surveillance testing so we can quickly get a better idea of what AY4.2 is doing, how well it responds to the current vaccines, the severity, attack rates, etc.

On recommending the original vaccine booster for younger and healthier people, you have to weigh further antigenic imprinting for the parent strain when the virus is antigenically drifting vs another dose of the vaccine that boost protection for current strains. In other words, boosting antibodies when half of those antibodies may not bind a future strain may not be the right choice for some people, probably lower risk people. For younger people if the vaccine immunity they have now is good enough they may not be in need of a booster right now so it might be better for them to wait for a possibility of a variant booster, while older or compromised people might need the boosters right now. The US may be at the end of the antigenically conserved pandemic, and that what may be next is a antigenically drifted strain that might resist more antibodies. Given that, there is a chance it might not be helpful with younger people to go with more antigenic imprinting of the parent virus and instead leave peoples immune systems more clear for possible booster vaccines. Now, I think to weigh boosting for protection from the current strains vs waiting to see what happens with antigenic drifting seems to be a personal decision based on a persons own situation.

Hopefully variant boosters won't be needed, but its better to be ready for the contingency that everyone will need quick access to a booster vaccine so the need to have capacity to produce a large number for everyone who wants one in a short period. I think the federal government should fund pfizer and moderna to keep its plants on standby permanently for surge vaccine production for the remainder of this pandemic and for future pandemic readiness.

Its really also because you have a system where you get to choose from two idiot parties. Really representatives are a sham to make the public think they are in control when in fact the wealthy elite with the power and money manuover people into power.

Secondly you have to be a narcissistic to run for office. Any sane person realizes you cant run for office without realizing that they will find out you said a bad word in the third grade.

Folks, this is exactly why Section 230 exists. Sites such as Wikipedia, Slashdot etc, could simply not exist without it. It would destroy innovation, choice and small business on the web. Section 230 is the Bill of Rights on the internet and simply codifies what should be obvious to begin with: only someone who writes something is liable for it. Going after something like Wikipedia for what someone put there is like going after your local supermarket because of what a shopper said there. These are public places where people talk and the electronic equivalent of a shopping mall, a store, or a bar.

The level of incompetence is really shocking, After predictions of a v shaped recovery, they couldnt get this one right. They didnt apparently keep tabs on the guy at the chip fab to make sure they had enough of the chips they would need. Now, because this is destroying the market for people with more modest incomes, its leading to K shaped recovery where most people are being left in the dust. The irony is companies are demanding their peons come back to the office when there are no cars to buy that you could afford to get there.

I really despise the anti-vaxxer disinformation, but I don't really think its Facebooks obligation to police it, but it should do so. Its the equivalent of a public square so therefore you don't hold the owner of the public square liable for what is spoken there. But the anti-vaxxer lies also fall under first amendment. Yes facebook could and should try to flag this disinformation, and it can do so, but it is not obligated to.

There are other ways using counter-disinformation, such as having counter-disinformation teams refute the false claims.

So yes I would love to see Facebook flag this content. I actually think flagging the content and putting counterdisinformation at that location rather than just pulling it down is the way to go, thus you can actually turn the situation in your favor and direct people into good information when they follow a link. If you just delete stuff your actually missing out on an opportunity to give people good information and to direct them to the CDC etc.

I disagree with that. Tried and true is more reliable because it has been better tested over years and is known to work. Whenever you change the design, there are new bugs that can be introduced in the process. The older designs have been used in cars for decades, and their reliability factors are well known, because they have been used so much and for so long. Testing and proving is what makes reliable. So you have a new nanometer design that you believe is more reliable. But its not reliable until its proven reliable through massive, extensive testing in the field. Period. So to change these designs car companies would need to go through an extensive process to test the new stuff for long term durability so that they know it will last a long time and will not suffer failures.

This is not your Windows PC where if it blue screens you can reboot. These are critical life safety systems. So you say that the new chip is more reliable, but thats due to a theoretical design, for life safety, its unreliable until proven reliable in use, in the field, in real life conditions.

Auto companies are right here. They had tried and true designs that worked for decades and that they know work.Some have said these older chips are not more reliable. Well, more reliable means more tested, and they have decades of testing behind them. So thats reliable. Because they have more testing, they are more reliable than newer stuff. When you change the design, its unreliable until proven not to be through massive testing. We are not talking about your home computer where if it blue screens you can just reboot. These are life safety systems so they are right to be conservative. Any change you have to test the hell out of it and that takes time.

The problem here is crappy devices made by crappy vendors with no right to repair, and no continued update support for their junk. Encrypt everything is good, and expiring certificates is a necessity.

In Japan, the CEO would have probably resigned and jumped off a bridge (okay, just resigned, but with huge apologies), to protect the employees and atone for how he wronged the company. In the US, the employees are offered as a human sacrifice to protect the CEOs get golden parachutes. Corporate america, corrupt as it gets.

Why not go after the CEO and the Board who had much more influence on these poor decisions? Forkner is probably a "little guy" with not all that much wealth so he doesn't have the clout and power. Rich CEO and board members get off every time,. Its always the employees who pay the price