Indeed. If a test runner embedding the Godot engine is now feasible on paper a proof of concept implementation seems deserved: if there are fatal bugs or limitations they will be eventually corrected (sooner if properly discovered, reported and discussed), and if there are none the new technology is "battle-tested" enough.
Taking feature lists and plans at face value is offensively shallow; the typical Rust fan arrogance pattern can be an explanation (if the Rust rewrite is "better", it doesn't have to be compatible with the rest of the world who uses the actual C SQLite).
Progress would be a respectful experiment to hack an implementation of vector indexing, or some other actually useful feature, into the actual SQLite, preferably as an extension.
That would be a valid experiment and, if it goes well, a contribution, while hoping that someone bases anything important on Turso looks like grabbing captive users.
If you think this discussion is antagonistic, you should see how antagonistic "entrepreneurs" and VCs become when they are in charge of open source projects. Risk aversion is good.
In this case, the familiar "rewrite it in Rust" MO has a special angle: the Turso feature list is such a terrifying collection of high-risk, low-performance, inferior, unlikely to be compatible, unproven and unnecessary departures from SQLite that a malicious embrace-and-extend business plan is a reasonable theory and reckless naivety is the best possible case.
Not only any computer of last resort would have software installed in advance and easily prepared redundant archives to install it again, but "pip install" is perfectly fine for other use cases: testing Reticulum, regularly updating everyday computers, improvised installations on someone else's computer, etc.
"Lastly, if you're set on 6K, there's also the Asus ProArt PA32QCV to consider. I haven't tested it yet, but it's $600 cheaper than LG's model, despite using the same 6K panel.
[...]
The biggest difference is the lack of Nano IPS Black"
How can it be the same panel if it differs in such a fundamental aspect?
These would be differences between two different monitors sharing the same panel. But if one is Nano IPS Black and one isn't, they don't have the same panel.
It might make sense to reduce curve size adaptively. Suppose the first control point of each candidate curve is randomly distributed anywhere in the image (weighted by error at each pixel might be more efficient than a uniform distribution), the other three control points are randomly distributed according to a Gaussian distribution with variance σ and average the previous control point, and the actual curve is clipped against the image rectangle. Then after N consecutive candidate curves are rejected we could reduce σ in order to try smaller curves.
Typically, what's nicer is the absence of other features that interfere with the important ones.
For example, Prolog isn't a general purpose functional or imperative language: you can assert, retract and query facts in the automatically managed database, risking only incorrect formulas, inefficiencies and non-monotonicity accidents, but not express functions, types, loops, etc. which could have far more general bugs.
Meaningless toy examples have the problem that they can appear to make sense, planting the seeds of terrible ideas.
If in a course example Dog extends Animal, it can be an arbitrary demonstration of language mechanisms (with an uncontroversial is-a relationship) but even in that case it is implicitly suggested that it is a good or "normal" design, implying an alarmingly complex program that has good reasons to deal with those two types.
Such a program is usually not described for brevity, giving the false impression that it exists: if the problem were analyzed with any diligence, usually Dog would appear a completely pointless complication.
More or less, this is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children debate. It'd be nice to always be able to learn the best known things up front, it's not usually a particularly practical approach to learning a complex field.
I.e. planting a terrible idea is alright so long as by the end the terrible idea was able to be replaced down the line in less time than trying to learn everything "correctly" from the get go. The latter part is where I felt the class failed, it held on to bad idea through the end instead of quickly replacing it with the "next level" of conceptual thinking.
The problem is that treating the incorrect simplification as good can be very tempting for teachers.
For example, in an introductory physics course teaching Newtonian dynamics without the brutal complications of special relativity and general relativity is fine because it doesn't take much to explain that it is an approximation and it is good enough for "everyday" situations. Students are aware that a better model is available: worst case, they try to get away with not using it.
On the other hand in an introductory programming course teaching that if you have Animals in the program the dog instances "should" belong to a Dog subtype is logically consistent and elegant; the only opposing force is the abstract and uncool engineering principle of keeping software simple, and many teachers are dogmatic and enthusiastic.
Everything seems drastically simpler after you've already learned it vs when you're trying to learn everything about it for the first time. Hell, even explaining what the difference between a class and a struct is in C++ ends up going into weeds about public/private that makes many people who just learned what variables were a few weeks ago, let alone trying to teach them what different attributes of classes do by comparing best practices of their usages.
I.e. they aren't trying to say what is elegant yet, they are just trying to get people to understand what the building blocks of classes they can compare are even supposed to do so they can get to comparing when you'd do different ones.
But there are bad teachers and they tend to be bad regardless of the example chosen.
Canada might be able to do that, but do also remember that the USA's president keeps talking about making Canada into just another state.
There's a big risk that everyone says "I want to be in the country that wins the next war. Therefore, China." and this then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because all (or enough of) the talent made the same choice.
reply