This is a take I often see recently, and it such a weird one. Greta Thunberg and her "crazed lunatics" have caused massive damage? By that do you mean that in a world without them, there would be much more efforts to fight climate change?
That is demonstrably false. Greta Thunberg only became famous in 2018. The world before 2018 was that world without "crazed lunatics", and things weren't any better than. Greta Thunberg got frustrated precisely because after all this time practically nothing was being done.
Also, exactly why do you call Greta a crazed lunatic? What has she done to deserve such a negative designation? What could she have done that in your eyes would have made a positive impact?
Also also, lots and lots of scientists have been telling the world about climate change, just as scientists did regarding ozone. It's just that the media or politicians or the industry or whoever decided their reports were inconvenient and they got largely ignored.
> Also also, lots and lots of scientists have been telling the world about climate change, just as scientists did regarding ozone. It's just that the media or politicians or the industry or whoever decided their reports were inconvenient and they got largely ignored.
Funny how this same media brought Greta to limelight. If you want to kill the messenger at least realize that it is the one that gave Greta her popularity (for better or worse).
> What could she have done that in your eyes would have made a positive impact?
Simple. Stayed out of news. Stayed in school and finished education instead of taking a gap year. The ones who should have been given coverage by media should have been the actual scientists working on this crisis. They would have been taken seriously. Instead it turned into a big joke.
> By that do you mean that in a world without them, there would be much more efforts to fight climate change?
Ofcourse there would have been. The World took scientists seriously when it came to ozone. It did take scientists seriously when it came to COVID even (though Fauci and co caused a lot of damage by becoming a political hack causing polarization when it should not have been). There was absolutely no reason to assume people would not have taken climate change seriously if it was presented in the right manner.
> This is a take I often see recently, and it such a weird one
The very fact you are seeing it often recently should tell you that a lot of people feel that way. Irrespective of which side of the divide you are on, the messaging is lost if an issue as critical as climate change is hijacked by a bunch of teens who are not taken seriously by those in power. If you ask me, the politicians and media were more than happy to let Greta be the face of the movement. Think about the last sentence I said for a bit and you'll realize you have been played.
In all the decades before Greta Thunberg, all the scientists who warned the world about climate change were largely ignored. Almost nothing happened to fight climate change. Greta has been in the spotlights for less than a decade. And yet it's all her fault? That is completely preposterous.
> Simple. Stayed out of news. Stayed in school and finished education instead of taking a gap year.
Billions and billions of people did exactly that, and nothing happened.
> The ones who should have been given coverage by media should have been the actual scientists working on this crisis. They would have been taken seriously.
When would they have been taken seriously? They have been warning the world since at least the 1980's. How long do we have to wait?
> Think about the last sentence I said for a bit and you'll realize you have been played.
My opinion on climate change has not changed by the appearance of Greta Thunberg. It looks like you're the one who lets Greta's opinion and actions influence yours. Why do you let someone you seem dislike so much have that much power over you?
> Why do you let someone you seem dislike so much have that much power over you?
I don't dislike her. I am talking about her antics doing a disservice to something as serious as climate change. To the point where there is at least 50% of the World not believing in climate change and associating it with Greta and her antics. (also, when I say Greta I mean all the crazy lunatics like her... which includes fools gluing themselves to the streets, blocking roads used by common folk and splashing oil on paintings).
> When would they have been taken seriously? They have been warning the world since at least the 1980's. How long do we have to wait?
It was not pushed with same urgency as that of Ozone by the media. What was needed was putting a sense of urgency into the public through media without making it into a clown show.
> Billions and billions of people did exactly that, and nothing happened.
I am saying she should not have been the face of the movement. And yes she is one of billions and she should have stayed that way. Maybe excelled in some field that actually suits her. Instead of becoming a prop for politicians and media who love to have her face plastered everywhere as a caricature of climate change activists.
> In all the decades before Greta Thunberg, all the scientists who warned the world about climate change were largely ignored. Almost nothing happened to fight climate change. Greta has been in the spotlights for less than a decade. And yet it's all her fault? That is completely preposterous.
The scientists were not ignored. Their messages never reached the masses as the media did not spread it with the same urgency that was Ozone or heck even COVID. You did not need someone like Greta to make people realize dangers of COVID right? Most countries followed lockdown procedures. It only became an issue once Fauci and co started becoming partisan. Initial weeks of COVID lockdowns (wherever it was implemented) were extremely successful. You just need the same sense of urgency for climate change and that can only happen through media and the right set of scientists. Take the Nepal disaster as an example of effects of climate change. How is the media portraying it? AS some natural disaster. Very few outlets are directly linking it to climate change.
> It looks like you're the one who lets Greta's opinion and actions influence yours.
My opinion on climate change is exactly that of Greta's. However, I know what I am. I am not a scientist. Much less a climate scientist. So I won't go on media claiming to be a representative of the movement and causing mayhem. I can at max educate the people around me to the dangers of climate change. But I won't make a fool of myself publicly by speaking on a topic that I have only cursory knowledge of.
> My opinion on climate change has not changed by the appearance of Greta Thunberg.
You are not the target audience. It is the remaining 50+% people who do not believe in climate change and think it is some grand conspiracy who need convincing. And they can never be convinced by a clown like Greta.
I'm in the same boat as kmoser. I don't like narrow text lines either.
In my experience, books are mostly OK, as long as they don't split up the text in columns. Magazines and newspapers often do have columns that are much narrower than I would like.
Surely between the browser window too wide (where the text lines are too long) and the browser window too narrow (where side bars are hidden) there exists a width that is exactly to your liking.
The point is that most websites have sidebars, but this one doesn't.
Let's say my preferred text width is 10 units. Due to sidebars, most websites require a browser window width of 20 units to show me 10 units of main text.
Then I visit this person's website and get text 20 units wide and it's very uncomfortable to read.
The text width I like doesn't change but the browser window width I need does change, and I don't want to change it when navigating around, to be honest.
I guess I could use the browser functionality to inject my own CSS rules for specific websites, then I could change the single-column no-max-width websites to show me a sensible text width.
But I also suppose that I'm not alone with this preference. I believe there have been studies about a suitable line length that is easy to read, and this is reflected in printed media. So those websites ask everyone to make such changes. That doesn't seem right.
A couple of years ago that would have been correct, but circumstances have changed.
We've had a series of heat waves this summer, and temperatures have gotten very high inside. Much depends on the location of course, and the type of building, and stuff like that, but the fact is that in Belgium alone thousands of people have died because of the heat. Thousands of people that would still be with us if they would have had adequate cooling.
When it's close to 40 °C in your home, a ceiling fan is not going to make a meaningful difference.
And we need to keep in mind that summers are in all likelihood going to get hotter and hotter.
I live in the Netherlands. My apartment has two floors. The upper floor is basically a greenhouse, so 40C is absolutely normal if I close the windows. During the summer I always keep at least one window open, which cools down the house to around 30-35C. This sucks during summer but during winter it's a blessing because I can have 30C on a sunny day even if it's 0C outside. The only drawback is that the windows are very old so in winter that heat escapes immediately once the sun is gone. HOA has been planning window replacement for years already.
The lower floor has windows facing north so it's always much cooler there. I've never seen it reach more than 30C, which was in the middle of a heatwave, usually it keeps 25C during summer.
> During the summer I always keep at least one window open, which cools down the house to around 30-35C.
Yeah this is exactly my point. If your house is so poorly insulated that your internal temperatures go above the ambient temperature, you can open a window.
Chances are that ambient are doesn't provide enough cooling. Maybe you can open only window, or all windows on the same side of your home, meaning there's no draft. Maybe you're in an urban environment, with a micro climate even hotter than outside the city. Maybe both. Heat will enter from sunlight and from people inside, and will exit only very slowly.
There's a world of difference between a house in the countryside, with maybe even some trees providing shade, and an apartment in a densely populated area with very low opportunities for thermal control.
You're right that Python 3.15 is not fully released yet, but it's in prerelease which is defined as:
"""
After the first beta, no new features can go in, but feature fixes (including significant changes to new features), bug fixes, and security fixes are accepted for the upcoming feature release.
"""
So it's a fairly well known target. Bruce Eckel published the first edition of this book a quarter of a century ago - he has a pretty good handle on the progression of Python.
I think this is great, because it prepares you for the Python coding style for now to in two years, in contrast to from two years ago to now, so the information stays relevant longer.
> P.S. The stack overflow question for splitting commits discusses the old and cumbersome approach. The 20th answer discusses the right approach but has a meagre 2 upvotes as of today, compared to 2656 for the older top answer with the cumbersome approach.
It now has 5 upvotes. A long way to go to 2656 but at least it's going in the right direction.
Still, it shows how incredibly broken the StackOverflow system is. It's completely normal for older answers to become outdated, but they still act like the old answers are laws of nature.
> One of SO's selling points was that outdated answers get replaced with the more modern (...)
I don't think this is description is right. What you describe as "outdated answers" are actually answers to apply up to specific releases. Just because a project launches a release that rolls out a new feature that doesn't render the old answers wrong or stale.
Not only this, but it's not super simple to update to the newest version anymore. I actually tried this today and I'm on `2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)`. It turns out I don't actually know how to update that. `brew install git` does not overwrite the system binary. I'm not the smartest person in the world, but if I had issues getting to the latest version, I assume a very small percentage of users actually has a Git version that will run `git history`.
It was introduced in 2.54, which was in April of this year, so less than 4 months ago. Almost nobody can run this command unless they're _really_ on top of things.
It's due in part to the number of people that kept posting screenshots of their code in their question, and the number of people that couldn't search to save their life. The noise ratio on incoming questions was always ridiculous, and the number of people who don't know how to ask a technical question is staggering. I do wish they had started to ask a series of questions to people for their first 5 or 10 posts to force them to ask questions in a useful way that was conducive to getting answers. The whole site never got over being hostile to new users.
SO had a number of fundamental issues. If you found a duplicate and flagged it as such, you couldn't explain why you thought it was a dupe in the flag. This meant that "this is a different question but the answer is the same" was just tagged a dupe the same way "this is literally the identical question" was.
I stopped participating entirely after a single event. When I was moderating the moderation, and the site decided to give me a trick question to "test if I was paying attention". Yeah, no. I don't have time for that bullshit. Apparently I'm still a top 1% user, though, and I think I've gained another 8,000 or 9,000 points since I left and stopped answering at anything.
The rise of AI and the death of SO is a beautiful beautiful thing. That community is the worst, and this opinion seems to be shared universally by anyone who had extensive interaction with it.
AI could gorge itself once on (probably stolen) training data from SO, among others, but who will answer new questions now, and where will new training data come from?
> At least the answer is there. When asking ChatGPT (Plus) the same question, it only suggests the old ways.
The old ways are still the right answer for multiple reasons, such as they still clearly work with the latest release and odds are you and everyone around you is not running the latest and greatest version of git installed.
> I personally sort by ‘date modified (newest first)’ on StackExchange sites.
Sites such as stack overflow would improve significantly if they actively tagged questions and answers with version numbers they would be applicable to.
That is demonstrably false. Greta Thunberg only became famous in 2018. The world before 2018 was that world without "crazed lunatics", and things weren't any better than. Greta Thunberg got frustrated precisely because after all this time practically nothing was being done.
Also, exactly why do you call Greta a crazed lunatic? What has she done to deserve such a negative designation? What could she have done that in your eyes would have made a positive impact?
Also also, lots and lots of scientists have been telling the world about climate change, just as scientists did regarding ozone. It's just that the media or politicians or the industry or whoever decided their reports were inconvenient and they got largely ignored.