I think there’s a fundamental difference between those two cases. Python was envisioned as a programming language that is easy to teach; APL was envisioned as a language that aids in teaching, not as a programming language (reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language), APL was started in 1957, with the first work on implementing it as a computer language only starting in 1962)
“Steve Russell said, look, why don't I program this eval… and I said to him, ho, ho, you're confusing theory with practice, this eval is intended for reading, not for computing. But he went ahead and did it. That is, he compiled the eval in my paper into IBM 704 machine code, fixing bugs, and then advertised this as a Lisp interpreter, which it certainly was. So at that point Lisp had essentially the form that it has today”
“A teleprinter (teletypewriter, teletype or TTY) is an electromechanical device used to send and receive typed messages through various communications channels
[…]
Initially, from 1887 at the earliest, teleprinters were used in telegraphy. Electrical telegraphy had been developed decades earlier in the late 1830s and 1840s, then using simpler Morse key equipment and telegraph operators
[…]
With the development of early computers in the 1950s, teleprinters were adapted to allow typed data to be sent to a computer”
I don’t see what that has to do with (increased) advertising on the App Store (IMO search there never has been good) or the comment you replied to in which colechristensen said: “I'm actually pretty disappointed in the lack of discovery available”.
I think paid advertising may even help improve discoverability on the App Store because, instead of making 10 or 20 to do list apps and hoping to get them to rank high by a combination of sheer luck and SEO tricks, scammers may only make one, and pay to get that to the top of the list.
In super markets product placement is affected by two factors: how much producers are willing to pay for a good spot (e.g. by offering lower wholesale prices if the product gets a more visible place) and vetting by the store owner.
I don’t think different solutions exist in the App Store. Apple doesn’t want to do much vetting, making advertising the only thing that may help (and yes, it would be awesome if there were a store that did do much vetting, but that requires a world where many different stores exist, and we aren’t there (yet))
> I think paid advertising may even help improve discoverability on the App Store
So my grandmother searching "Powerpoint" and getting malware instead of the microsoft app is good actually?
Let me compare some search terms and see if ads are giving me "better" results:
* ublock - surfshark vpn
* wordle - spammy adware word game
* slack - spammy adware game
* microsoft word - spammy spyware office app (not the one made by MS)
* every bank I could think of - different financial app
Like, this isn't a good user experience. The ads aren't relevant, even when you type in a hyper-popular app's name exactly, something like 80% of the time a competitor has sniped the top spot.
For the "microsoft word" search, the spam app had an identical logo to word, and I have no doubt many people have been fooled. If you look at the reviews, some of the 1 star reviews are detailed complaints, and all the 5 star reviews are inhuman sounding "This helped me do my job" and "great app" reviews.
> I don’t think different solutions exist in the App Store
Sorting roughly by popularity and reviews, and also doing a little more to combat fake reviews, seems like it would be better. It at least would mean that if I searched "bank name" my bank's app would come up, since for every bank I tried the first non-ad result was in fact the bank in question.
It would save grandmothers around the world who just click on the first result.
So you're saying a hypothetically well implemented advertisement service could be better than a hypothetical poorly implemented ranking service.
The reality is right now we have a poorly implemented advertisement service that shows malware, and if you ignore the ads and look at the search results based on relevance, they're clearly better.
The claim "A good ad service would be good" is a truism, but that's not the reality we live in.
The FSSpec calls added in System 7 are mostly new interfaces to existing File Manager functionality. There's an actual high-level `OpenDF()` call, which is like `FSOpen()` except that it won't try to open a driver when the name begins with `.`.
Some applications call `OpenDF()` without checking its availability, but fall back to `FSOpen()` or equivalent if `OpenDF()` returns `paramErr`, which is what the parent is witnessing. See `68k/modules/ams-fs/Files.cc` in the `metamage_1` repo.
If the error message is confusing people, maybe it's time to implement `OpenDF()` for real.
It's not you; it's me. My implementation of LoadScrap() (which is called at startup) is calling FSOpen(), and it turns out the glue code for that tries OpenDF() before falling back to PBOpen(). TIL.
> Artemis acceptable crew mortality rate is 1 in 30. Roughly 3x riskier than the shuttle
Do you have a link? I’m asking because it is very easy to make mistakes when comparing risks. For example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47725961 translates that into “That if we send 30 people we _accept_ that one is possible to die.” If that interpretation is correct, given Artemis has a crew of four, that looks more like a 1:120 chance of a mortality of 4. I think that would make it an improvement over the space shuttle.
That’s precisely my point. The question is what a crew mortality rate of 1 in 30 means.
If it means that, on average, a team member dies every 30 flights, with a crew of four, it’s likely there are fatalities in ‘only’ one in every 120 flights.
For space shuttle, that number was about one in every 60 flights. So, with that interpretation, Artemis would be about twice as safe as the Space Shuttle.
If, on the other hand, it means that, if you step aboard Artemis, your chance of dying during the flight is about one in 30, the Space Shuttle would be about twice as safe as Artemis.
Isn’t the screen shot of the app just below the fold good enough? Or would you like to see the finished product. The quality of that would significantly depend on the person making it (how well they can cut paper, how well they can glue) and their commitment to quality (how hard they’re trying), so I think it would either oversell the product by showing something the average user cannot produce or undersell it.
It's likely that the onboarding system for activating and linking the Kindle to an account will no longer work after a factory reset, and you will not be able to progress further.
FTA: “As a motivating example: player 1 (hereafter dubbed "Red") can win by playing in the center column on the first move and then following the weak solution's suggestions, but would not be guaranteed to win if the first disc is played elsewhere. The weak solution contains no information about what would happen in the other columns- As far as Red cares, it would be redundant to learn those branches, since they are not good.”
I don’t think that “since they are not good” is necessary for a weak solution. Even if every first move were winning, it still would be redundant to learn how to win for every possible opening move.
A weak solution gives you a guaranteed way to move from START to a win, whatever counterplay, not all ways to go from START to a win, whatever counterplay.
Lisp is similar to APL in that sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language)#Hi...:
“Steve Russell said, look, why don't I program this eval… and I said to him, ho, ho, you're confusing theory with practice, this eval is intended for reading, not for computing. But he went ahead and did it. That is, he compiled the eval in my paper into IBM 704 machine code, fixing bugs, and then advertised this as a Lisp interpreter, which it certainly was. So at that point Lisp had essentially the form that it has today”
reply