A metric that features a poll about popular languages is already about future use, since most programmers NOW mostly bleat about what next gen language they are testing to use (while they run production with anything considered non-sexy, including VB, VBScript and Cobol).

This has been attempted before - with various levels of success. See "Plan 9 from Bell Labs"' acme.

In plan9, some of Unix' core concepts were abandoned. Including the 'one tool for one job' philosophy that is the basic underpinning of Unix. A prime example was particularly relevant for this discussion: acme.

Acme was

    * A shell
    * The window manager
    * a file browser
    * A text editor
    * A hypertext browser (not sure if this included web browsing, it's been too long ago)
    * A mail reader

all rolled into one binary. Basicly, *exactly* what you wish for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... kind of describes it.

Plan 9 didn't catch on for a number of reasons - some of those abandoned UNIX principles turned out to be important after all...

Often, the answer getting a green tick isn't necessarily the most accurate answer (or even: correct). It's the answer that OP liked reading best.

Given that they asked the question to begin with, that typically makes them less-than-qualified to make that assessment.

"[ChatGPT] simply makes it too easy for users to generate responses and flood the site with answers that seem correct at first glance but are often wrong on close examination."

I would suggest that "seeming correct at first glance but often being wrong" correctly describes *most* answers on StackOverflow.

They actually make a decent code analysis framework. It's largely cobbled together from existing solutions, but it works reasonably well.

I used it at a previous job.

There isn't really any proof that Waymo vehicles are driverless, only that the driver isn't in the vehicle. If you compare a dozen dubiously driverless vehicles to a million collecting data every moment and already doing a pretty good job at autonomy, which do you think will succeed?

The fact that the driver is not in the vehicle does not mean that there is no driver.

I believe that this was figured out in the amateur observer community before NASA confirmed it. I saw it go by in my twitter feed. Not sure I can find it now...

Linear Energy Transfer

It's not radioactive. When high-energy particles strike it, they break apart into lower-energy particles that are more harmful. So, you need enough shielding to catch the particles that break apart in the top layer of your shielding.

While radiation mostly results in transient errors, it can also cause latch-ups that blow a gate off of the die. For rad-hard equipment in space this is mitigated by silicon-on-insulator fabrication, so that you can't have a latch-up between the substrate and a silicon feature.

We could have REAL ZOMBIES! YEAH!

:-)

I hear you. Going to be an interesting future, if we live.

Someone who broke their neck and was suffering from paralysis. You can control a chair or exoskeleton. People who can not hear today have cochlear implants, this is not all that different and might (eventually) work better. Or speak, or see. Other people who are disabled in various ways.

Oops. To continue: I'm just not seeing that it is so hard to access. But then, I use a Linux desktop, which has always come with a proper PDF renderer, there has never been a need to download "Acrobat".