I believe the Aptera was originally going to have motors in the wheels... My understanding is the the first version will forego that, as there were challenges i guess, but i think they still to eventually do that.
I think the idea from putin is, they are done in 20 years anyway from a population/financial position anyway. There only chance is to expand and take over populations to rebuild their ability to survive as a country.
Is this something that you would have done? I don't see how russia's survivability would be improved by expanding it's sphere of control, but, on the contrary it would stretch resources thin.
Fun fact, Altoids tend to be one of the better treatment for dismotility, meaning folks who have esophagus's that don't operate correctly to help swallow down food.
>> The thing that separates Forth from most other languages is its use of the stack. In Forth, everything revolves around the stack
I mean, that's pretty much every language. The main difference is that the programmer's access to it is unconstrained by things like method call definitions.
Unlike most languages, Forth has two stacks. It sounds trivial, but it changes many things. It allows for a leaner call convention. With a single stack, every function call has to "shovel forward" its arguments over the function return address, where Forth "glides" through its arguments, making function calls significantly lighter.
Like Forth, Ada has two stacks. Unlike Forth, which uses two stacks to simplify the language, Ada uses two stacks to complexify the language. This generalizes to other language features.
Ada's auxiliary stack is used to permit the returning of runtime-variable-sized objects from subroutines, which is also a thing you can use the operand stack for in most Forths.
Most languages don't have an explicit stack, and even their implicit stack is only for subroutine calls. If you're not making subroutine calls, your compiled code might not access the stack at all. So, for example, here's the strlcpy function from OpenBSD, lightly edited:
size_t strlcpy (char *dst, const char *src, size_t siz) {
register char *d = dst;
register const char *s = src;
register size_t n = siz;
if (n != 0 && --n != 0) {
do { if ((*d++ = *s++) == 0) break; } while (--n != 0);
}
if (n == 0) {
if (siz != 0) *d = '\0';
while (*s++)
;
}
return(s - src - 1);
}
GCC 12.2.0 compiles this to the following 18 ARM instructions, with -mcpu=cortex-a53 -Os -S:
If you're not familiar with ARM assembly, I'll tell you that nothing in this entire function uses the stack at all, which is possible because strlcpy doesn't call any other functions (it's a so-called "leaf subroutine", also known as a "leaf function") and because ARM, like most RISCs, puts the subroutine return address in a register (lr) instead of on the stack like amd64, or in the called subroutine like the PDP-8, which doesn't have a stack at all. And the calling convention puts arguments and return values in registers as well. So the function can just move data around between memory and registers and decrement its loop counter and increment its pointers without ever touching the stack.
FORTRAN up to FORTRAN 77 didn't support recursion, including indirect recursion, so that you could implement it without a stack.
By contrast, in Forth, instead of registers you use the operand stack. For loop counters you use the return stack. Sometimes you can use the operand stack instead of variables as well, although I think it's usually a better idea to use variables, especially when you're starting to learn Forth—it's much easier for beginners to get into trouble by trying too hard to use the stack instead of variables than to get into trouble by trying too hard to use variables instead of the stack.
Some users may be too young to remember this, but up until the 2010s, liberals were generally opposed to all censorship by anyone, and wanted the First Amendment to be interpreted liberally to apply beyond just government actions. It wasn't until about 2017 that you started to hear liberals say, "They're a private corporation; they can do what they want," which you would have heard only from conservatives before that.
Now that some corporations appear to be shifting again and can't be trusted to censor only conservatives anymore (most notably Twitter after the Musk purchase) we're seeing the 20th-century expansive interpretation of free speech making a comeback on the left. Feels comfy, like an old pair of slippers.
I'm in my 40s and I remember it very clearly. I'm not even American, but belief in freedom of speech was the norm both inside and outside of the USA.
If you don't, I would say it's because you've forgotten that the word "liberal" in American political discourse used to actually correspond at least vaguely to what traditional dictionaries, historically recognized classical liberal authors, encyclopedias of political thought, and basic logic and reason all used to agree on. As opposed to what it appears to mean now, which seems to be something approximately like "everything that's closer to what the DNC proposes than what the RNC proposes, at any given moment".
Seeing Musk buy Twitter and start promoting right wing speech rather than left wing speech was quite the shock to these people. Suddenly the realisation dawned that corporate censorship could be used against those you agreed with, and in favour of your opponents.
(it was also amusingly the time in which the right went quiet on censorship on Twitter, for much the same reason).
Either way, it's become really apparent that most people don't have any consistent political beliefs or values, and only value freedom of speech so much as 'their' team gets to say what they want without consequences and their opponents get bullied and shut down at a moment's notice.
The right went quiet about censorship on X because there just isn't much of it. I remember at the time when people were asked to justify the claim X was censoring the left people could only cite three examples, two of which were mistakes and their profiles were rapidly restored (yet they were still being cited as examples of leftists who were kicked off the platform), and one of which was an Antifa account permabanned for ... inciting violence against the right.
In the Twitter years the right could produce endless lists of right wing people banned from the platform, and we now know there were tons of internal emails and discussions about that exact policy. The fact that nobody could produce similar lists for the left post-Musk indicates that he really has significantly improved the free speech situation there.
While there is nuance between the government and a private benefit corp like Bluesky restricting speech, I'm rolling it all together for these purposes. I agree there is legal nuance (de facto vs de jure). As I mentioned, Bluesky is entitled to do so, as it is their platform. So, you take your speech to another platform operated on a distributed protocol. This is no different then creators posting their content to Rumble instead of traditional social platforms, for example (as Charlie Kirk did).
> Founded in 2013 by a Canadian entrepreneur, Chris Pavlovksi, Rumble was designed to be an alternative to YouTube for small content creators. But it quickly began to pride itself on being the opposite of other tech firms.
> According to Rumble’s website, it is “immune to cancel culture” and aims to “restore the internet to its roots by making it free and open once again”. Pavlovksi has described it as “neutral”.
> Rumble is backed by the billionaire and prominent conservative venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who invested in 2021, and the conservative former Fox News presenter Dan Bongino, who has 2.9 million subscribers himself. The platform is valued at more than $2bn (£1.6bn).
("what's good for the goose is good for the gander")
