I kinda think that if MS tried Palladium today, they could succeed.
Windows does have most of the features of Palladium today, but it’s impact is modest because native desktop applications for consumers don’t have the importance they once did. The main place people encounter it is game anticheat.
A combination of secure boot, DRM, and remote attestation Microsoft proposed adding to Windows in the early 2000s. It was such an obvious corporate power grab that it got critical coverage from the New York Times.
Things like Google SafetyNet have been equally obvious corporate power grabs, but barely got negative coverage from the tech press, much less the mainstream media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next-Generation_Secure_Computing_Base
That’s all kinds of fucked. Anybody who saw Microsoft Palladium and thought it was a good idea shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a computer.
Subaru XT (Alcyone or Vortex in some markets).
I owned one of these. The aerodynamics were great for a 1980s car. It even had purely mechanical flush door handles, which modern car designers could learn from.
The battery law is “so broad and so restrictive that it prevents the sale of this wonderful, jointly developed, U.S.-European product from being sold in the European Union…”
No. Meta chose to design e-waste.
It’s interesting to read this perspective. In the west, MBS is probably best known for butchering journalists.
I’m curious as to how people were actually using Google Glass in 2013. The only place I saw one then was at a programming meetup. I’m quite sure people weren’t regularly running the camera continuously because that drains the battery in a hurry and overheats it even faster.
Source: I bought a new old stock Glass XE-C this year. They’re $50 on Ebay. I’m working on a navigation app for it because I want heads-up cycling directions.
How to motivate right to repair advocacy in other regions in one easy step…
I think most of us understand economics well enough to see that there’s no difference between a selective discount and a selective price hike.
Sure, but many languages do that,
I wrote several paragraphs and talked about three languages, so I’m going to have to guess about what “that” refers to. I’m guessing it’s Lisp macros. Your other comment offers template metaprogramming in C++ as an alternative.
Template metaprogramming Gets maybe a third of the way to what Lisp macros offer. It can do compile-time syntax transformations, but it doesn’t provide the full C++ language with which to do so, doesn’t operate on the actual parse tree, and isn’t Turing-complete in practice because of fixed limits on recursion depth in real compilers. Rust macros get much closer, providing the full power of Rust and the option to get at a real AST by parsing the token stream they operate on.
If you mean something else, please elaborate. It’s an interesting topic.
There are more modern and better ways, IMO.
I’m not sure what “more modern” means in this context. If it just means young, I can probably find a Lisp family language with its first release this year, though that wouldn’t be the one I would recommend to a beginner. If it means recently-updated, Racket, the Lisp I recommended learning had its latest stable release nine days ago. If it means something else, please say so.
“Better” probably can’t be measured objectively, but by all means, make the case for something else.
Some people want to learn programming to get a job, though perhaps not as many in 2026. Some people want to do a project that happens to requiring programming. Some actually want to understand programming and get good at it. The last group will benefit from learning Lisp and Haskell even if they don’t end up using those languages much. I thought my first comment explained why and I think Corngood elaborated on it, but I’ll add more.
The reason to use programming languages instead of machine/assembly languages is that they add abstractions, and allow the programmer to add more abstractions. An abstraction is a name and implementation for a repeated pattern in code, which documents the programmer’s intent when it is used, allows all invocations to be modified in one place, and substantially shortens programs. In most languages, there’s a distinction between abstractions the language designer can add and those the programmer can; in Lisp, there is not.
If most languages didn’t have if or class, you couldn’t add them in a library; you’d have to modify the interpreter or compiler. Here’s if defined in a Lisp-like language I’m working on:
(defmacro if (test then else)
`(cond ~test ~then true ~else))
This is possible because Lisp code is made of Lisp data structures which it can easily manipulate, and because it has the ability to control when evaluation occurs. Here, we need to splice three blocks of code into a cond expression, which is a more generalized form of conditional evaluation that takes an unlimited number of test/then pairs. We must also prevent the premature evaluation of the branch not chosen, which is why if and cond can’t be regular functions. In Common Lisp, the entire object system can be implemented as a library.
Haskell and similar languages also offer significant power for abstraction with its sophisticated type system and lazy evaluation, but the more important lesson they can teach is the gurantees they can make at compile time. Once a Haskell program compiles, it has a much greater chance to work as expected than any other language I’ve used.
SQL teaches thinking in data. Most programs exist to store and manipulate data, so that’s pretty relevant.
I question the suggestion that Zig and Go are not “serious” programming languages. They certainly weren’t designed to be “easy” beginner languages.
I don’t think it matters a whole lot which language you start with. Learning to program is largely separate from learning a particular language, and if you do programming for a while, you’ll probably learn several. I do think someone who wants to understand programming deeply should learn each of:
The policy is mandated for “certified” Android devices. Those have Google apps preloaded and pass Google’s remote attestation.
GrapheneOS is not certified and has no plans to be.
Given that new cars are very expensive, and you don’t want new-car features, you might be better off putting significant money into maintaining your old car.
People usually only do that with collectable cars they expect to increase in value or enthusiast cars they drive for fun, but you can spend quite a bit on maintenance before it’s as expensive as new-car depreciation.
I’m not sure I’d describe it as “bad vibes”, but Detroit has always struck me as charmingly postapocalyptic. It’s the only place I’ve ever seen fires in barrels in the middle of streets in real life.
Yeah, I talked about how assets are different than things we need, like health…
The original comment references luxury assets like supercars. In the USA, the average adult needs a car of some sort to function in society, and often cannot afford the unplanned purchase of a reliable used car (let’s call that $15K). Collision insurance that will cover most of the cost of a replacement car is a reasonable value for many people, and the insurance company doesn’t have any special leverage like access to massive discounts on replacement cars (they may have access to modest discounts on repair services, but nothing like what health insurance has).
You just don’t understand it
I think I made it pretty clear I understand that for-profit health insurance is a scam because providers overcharge anyone who doesn’t have it to an extreme degree. That’s not the case for pretty much anything else.
For-profit insurance for most things isn’t a scam. Insuring against the destruction of a house or car, for example is a calculated tradeoff; on average, you lose money (expected value is negative), but only a little at a time. In exchange, you get a guarantee that you won’t lose an asset you can’t afford to replace.
For-profit health insurance in the USA is a special sort of scam because they negotiate prices that aren’t available to the public, often an order of magnitude lower.
If someone was going to reward me for burning a lot of tokens, I’d feed LLM output into the LLM input until they ran out of rewards.
I am surprised. I’ve run both KDE and Gnome on a Surface Go 2 (8100Y), which is either slower or barely faster depending on which CPU you have, and I’ve had no UI lag.
If it’s true that young software developers are mostly not productive, then employing them hasn’t made sense for decades because staying at the same company for most of one’s career stopped being the default some time around 1980.