In a hunter-gatherer society you'd have far higher chances of survival in a team/tribe. I don't find it surprising at all that feeling lonely (a desire to be part of a tribe) would have such a strong impact on mental (and therefore physical) health. It would act as a strong drive for the lonely person to change their situation, potentially improving their chances of survival and reproduction.
From an evolutionary perspective it's little different to starvation. In fact, you could define loneliness as "social starvation".
Looks interesting, but TBH I'm still waiting for full swagger spec generation. It should be easy to go from grpc->swagger to generate REST client libs. Unfortunately in practice the swagger generator has many holes in it making it useless in several use cases. So... without being able to generate swagger specs it looks like gRPC is no use for a large number of use cases. Shame really since it has promise but still seems half-baked.
> It should be easy to go from grpc->swagger to generate REST client libs.
I theory yes, but would you want to? In my experience I've found that building REST services is very different than building a GRPC service. The contract between the client and server are totally different.
> gRPC is no use for a large number of use cases. Shame really since it has promise but still seems half-baked.
gRPC is half-baked? You realize that the a large portion of the google backend is built on top of gRPC. Its an extremely well tested tool.
How much of the Google backend is actually built on top of gRPC? My (outsider's) understanding is gRPC was the "open-source version/rewrite" (typical Google) of Google's internal software, stubby. IIRC, _some_ of the Google Cloud public-facing APIs use it, but what else?
As a proponent of gRPC, I can say that some of the libraries, tools, docs, etc. are definitely half-baked. There are plenty of severe issues in the (confusing codebase of) grpc-go that have been open for over 1.5y.
FWIW, the primary maintainer of grpc-go left the team and it was passed on to a new maintainer. The new maintainer inherited the mess. Not justifying the project or anything, but I think that's why. Look at the Github top contributors to see what I mean.
Can't comment on the gateway, gRPC for Python is definitely half-baked though. gRPC is great; the tooling is not. Google seems to only be updating whatever parts of gRPC they use internally. Everything else is practically unusable. While that is fair from Google's standpoint, it really hurts adoption.
The problem with web is that browsers don't expose trailers. gRPC depends on having trailers to know if the RPC succeeded or failed, but neither Chrome nor Firefox, nor any other browsers surface this information. If this was exposed in the XHR or Fetch API, gRPC would work.
It's browsers in this case that are the laggard (trailers have been part of the spec since HTTP/1.1).
I imagine that could be done via native JS arrays or a WebAssembly module, just not sure if it would be an improvement versus REST(JSONP) from performance point of view.
I know. It doesn't work well enough. If Google focussed on this I think gRPC would gain massive ground. But issues are left open for months without any response, etc.
We've had to drop gRPC as a direct result of this.
The person you're replying to clearly is willing to put in effort, but requires a minimum of guidance from the maintainers of the project. That's perfectly reasonable, and your passive-aggressive response is not justified.
No but it was "paid for" by the student living with/spending significant time with the guru doing chores for them. I'd rather pay a few bucks per month to avoid that.
Half the genes are those of my partner... and I guess it could be that way even if they were biologically my kids? TBH I used to think about it a lot when we first got together, but now I don't really think about them other than they are my kids... not biologically, of course, but there's more to life than biology. Otherwise I'd be my Dad, and that would be Worst Case Scenario for me.
I don't know. I've got a bunch of biological kids, and while propagating my genes is not the only reason I care for them, it's an explicit strong positive for me.
You really care about their genes? What if they adopt kids or choose not to have any? Will it distress you greatly that you went through all that effort just to have your genes not continue to the next generation?
I think it's likely you're applying an evolutionary explanation to your parenting behavior, but don't really care that much about your children's actual genes. You care about your children as persons, not their molecular machinery.
If you really, really cared you would have your genes cloned and be donating massively to sperm banks and what not.
Oh, I definitely care. I'd prefer at least some of them have biological kids, but the odds of that are good with my buckshot approach.
I think mine is actually the simpler explanation, and yours is reaching a bit. We're surrounded by vicious competition for genetic reproduction, I don't know why humans would be the exception.
And I don't want a clone, I want to pick a partner with all kinds of good genes to bring to the mix and toss them together, which I did. A partner I'm attracted to in part because of a lot of cues she gives me indicating her genes.
I think when you've had the pride of a son or daughter who is the spitting image of you, or walks just like you, or is noticeably muscular in the places you are, it's hard to deny exactly where that is coming from..
You're admitting that you want someone else's genes in addition to yours to be passed on. Someone you're not related to, which is your wife. And then your kids spouses. Your genes will get diluted each generation.
Anyway, there was an interesting philosophy podcast that rejected reductionistic evolutionary explanations for human behavior. The reasoning goes that yes, evolution is responsible for creating our minds, but once we have the ability to be conscious, to reflect, ask all sorts of questions and form new ideas and what not, that this is a new level of explanation. Thus the need for psychology, sociology, etc.
Call it an emergent if you like. Evolution itself is emergent upon physics, chemistry, geology, climatology, etc.
Maybe. The cost-benefit of kids never really seemed to make much sense to me. Perhaps I'll live to regret it or change my mind in future. Either way, I make my bed...
Why do the genes matter? Human beings matter, not genes. Who really cares what genes propagate, with the exception of defective ones that cause diseases.
> I've had a few inspectors demand access to my home to verify that I wasn't watching TV illegally
Ask to see their warrant or tell them to get lost. They have no power of entry, possibly unless accompanied by the po po (in which case ask the same question and "Am I legally obliged to comply with this officer?", while videoing them and their response).
> Enquiry officers do not have any legal powers to enter your home without a search warrant granted by a magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland).
> You have no obligation to grant entry to an enquiry officer if you don’t wish to do so.
From an evolutionary perspective it's little different to starvation. In fact, you could define loneliness as "social starvation".