Other than the SwiftUI framework, approximately everything that's in Swift was in Objective-C 5â"10 years ago.

Not the concurrency framework (GCD is not the same), SwiftUI doesn't have things like Swift structs, only supports integers enums, Generics, no guard statement. Also finer grained access control.

Mind you they have improved Objective-C over the years by bringing in some Swift features as Swift improved! Like nullability annotations.

I still do like Objective-C as a language but even with Swifts advanced areas and quirks, I still think it's more straightforward than Objective-C for newer users. And I think finally with the new beta version of Swift they have a concurrency model that is strong but also friendly enough for people to work with.

Oh, and just to add one more thing . Some network protocols just fundamentally can't work under NAT. Ex: FTP. So party of the reason this seems to worn is because we changed the way we design protocols to be NAt compatible. That's dumb. The Internet should just work.

I work for a company that makes large industrial machines. Some of the machines are, themselves, networks. They have motors and sensors and encoders and PID controllers and more. But too many of those devices assume ipv4, as do the corporate networks they live behind. So we have to assign all the embedded devices IPv4 addresses that don't conflict with the corporate s network, then apply NAT. It is overcomplicated, and so I can't remotely monitor the devices. To solve this there are a gzillion 3rd-party companies each with their own tools and APIs for remote monitoring.

Each device ought to be able to assign itself a unique IPv6 address and we could talk straight to it. Instead we go through a myriad of 3rd-party NAT hacks to get there.

A firewall is fine. Multiple levels for firewall is fine. Multiple levels of firewall each one rewriting the IP address is a nightmare. Often time today teams assume NAT is a firewall feature, when in reality firewall don't need NAT to function. It's just a hack.

We have made it work, but it is costing us dearly. End-to-end addressability is fundamental to the original design of the internet. It enables any two nodes to communicate directly without needing a third party to broker the connection. For example, decades ago two people could play a video game over the internet without needing a 3rd-party server. IPv4 exhaustion and widespread use of NAT broke the model, handing control over to centralized services. So today, my cell phone can't ping your cell phone without going through someone else.

The Internet went from a democratic self-healing system to one where big corporations dictate what protocols we can use to connect.

Us old farts pine from the old days. Today's network engineers are fine with corporate control because they don't know anything else. Time will tell how big of a problem this really is.

Perhaps governments that want the citizens and corporations to police speech should provide a webapi like https://gov.br/IsAcceptablePos... that returns true or false, so we all know what is okay and what is not.

Sometime, if we are lucky, we will get a small programming language that does not collect new features every year just for the sake of progress

Swift does get new features every year but I would argue most have been good quality of life, or quality of code improvements. Especially the latest changes around concurrency are really good.

Avoiding the pyramid of 500 third-party packages for a mid-sized application is a good thing.

Totally agree but that is where Swift has been really great! It is VERY practical now to build a medium to large application with only handful of third party packages. That was very much not the case 5-10 years ago. If you look at any modern Swift app it looks nothing like the swirl of madness that is a modern React application.

Other nations regularly poach in the Georges Bank? That's pretty crazy.

You're really triggering Poe's Law here for me.

It doesn't need to change the total catch. You can lower the minimum size if you impose a maximum size. Same fraction of the total fish allowed to be caught. Large fish tend to be much better reproducers than small ones, so you may actually be able to allow an even larger fraction of the fish to be caught each year.

You better put the word "findings" in quotation marks. This "study" is a preprint, has not been peer reviewed, and it's being widely mocked for its bad methodology. But the media is just loving to run with it. Even the lead author is complaining about the media's "LLMs cause brain damage!" hot takes.

(BTW, that's the reason why "Saran Wrap" is no longer made of Saran. Saran is a far better barrier polymer than the polyethylene that Saran Wrap is made of today, but Saran is polyvinylidene chloride, aka chlorinated - and almost invariably ends up in the trash, where it will get burned. The decision to switch to inferior polyethylene wrap was so that it would burn cleaner)

People usually assume that all the plastic they see around food is "waste", when in reality it's usually carefully engineered to maximize shelf life, and thus minimize food waste. And the energy / resources needed to make that miniscule amount of plastic and the issues with its disposal are well worth offsetting wasted energy producing, processing, and transporting a larger fraction of food that just goes to waste.

Plastic around fresh fruit? That's maintaining it at an optimal humidity and/or reducing the risk of scratches that lead to spoilage. Metalized plastic wrap around your cookies in a box? The alumium is applied to that plastic to decrease water and oxygen transport by orders of magnitude, veritably eliminating the main ways in which food goes bad. On and on. And you know what the alternative is to maximize the shelf life of foods? Preservatives. You want more preservatives in your food? No? Then be happy with better-protective packaging.

And we all would love all of the plastic to be "biodegradable", but the problem is that waste doesn't come with a switch that says "Okay, now I'm done with you, fall apart". There's a steady process of biodegradable polymers becoming weaker and weaker, and letting orders of magnitude more oxygen and moisture through them. Basically, by the time they're at your supermarket, if it's at all easy to biodegrade, it's already doing a crappy job. Some products reduce (but not eliminate) these problems, but usually via requiring special conditions for quick decomposition, such as particularly high temperatures - but most landfills don't reach those conditions. And again, we're talking about generally grams of plastic, or even milligrams. This just isn't the big issue people make it out to be. Just burn it. Have good pollution controls on the incinerator, and just burn it. Just avoid chlorinated and fluorinated polymers that tend to produce more problematic combustion products.

Sorting plastic is useful even if most of it is going to be burned.

  * Some types of plastic are much easier to recycle than others
  * Some types of plastic can't be easily recycled, but are good for downcycling (such as use as filler materials)
  * Most types of plastic are fine to burn, but you don't want to burn chlorinated or fluorinated plastic (at least not with very strong pollution controls)

So sorting your waste is good. In our system, we have four types: "hard plastic" (which is probably manually or automated sorted for things that are readily recycleable and to remove PVC, etc); "plastic packaging" (probably burned); "plastic foam" (probably densified and not burned); and "large plastic film" (such as from greenhouses, row covers, construction plastic, etc; I'm not sure what they do with it).

Also:

The low price of wind and solar allow them to be overbuilt while still being affordable - and if you do that, with a mix of wind, solar, and battery storage, you can affordably build a grid that provides e.g. 90%, 95%, 98%, even over 99% of your electricity - but you never get to 100%. You still need some sort of peaking, which needs some sort of bulk storable energy medium. Well, one possibility for that is waste - it's storable and can be burned. Waste / biomass commonly provides a couple percentage of nations' total power needs - which, in a high-renewables grid, may be most or all of your peaking needs.

The suggested regulations I've seen to counter these evolutionary pressures are IMHO pretty clever: you impose both minimum *and maximum* sizes on your catch. You can only keep fish that are between the minimum and maximum sizes. So growing fish have a certain size where they're in the "danger zone", but if they get bigger than it, they can keep spawning to their heart's content with no danger from humans.

** near that size