I had it make a simple HTML/JS canvas game (think flappy bird) and while it did some things mildly better (and others noticeably worse) it still fell into the exact same traps as earlier models. It also had a lot of issues generating valid JS at parts and asking it what the code should be just made it endlessly generate the same exact incorrect code.
Simply on a factual basis, the data we have from previous extinction events does not have the temporal resolution needed for us to determine how quickly the temperature increased/decreased. E.g., "how quickly did the atmospheric temperature change after the Chicxulub event?" We don't know. Decent-quality global paleoclimate proxies only extend back ~15k years or so. It's possible that there was rapid global climate change in the past outside of major extinction events; we genuinely don't have the data to tell.
This also doesn't really tell us much about how the modern Earth and its ecosystems would handle those old climate shifts, because there is much much less wild lands (and so, less resilience within natural ecosystems). It's true from a climate science perspective, but not useful for assessing the damage that climate change can cause to modern society.
And: to the best of our knowledge, the current rate of warming is fast enough to cause major issues. Civilization only arose once we had relatively stable and moderate temperatures, and stable temperatures may be needed to maintain civilization under present technology. Ecological and glaciological studies back this up. And no, scientists are not looking to just scare us into action; the evidence itself should be alarming.
According to the no doubt very reliable Animal Armageddon: Episode 3: Doomsday it would have gotten very hot on the surface (100C+?) a few hours after Chicxulub then a while after that apparently 26C colder than normal for years due to dust in the atmosphere.
We can't say for sure that the current feedback loops will be identical to those that did or did not exist in the past. Differences in the initial state could result in different outcomes.
For example was there as much methane trapped in the arctics during the last time CO2 was high?
Does the rate of the increase of CO2 and temperature have an effect? Because it's currently getting hotter far faster (absurdly so) than any other period we have records for.
The problem with (3D) CAD I've heard is that the Open CASCADE CAD kernel is a huge mess. So as much as they update and fix FreeCAD (and they've made a lot of good progress, but it's still very rough around the edges) they're always going to be hampered by that. And making a new CAD kernel is a massive undertaking.
While this is definitely true, for a long time FreeCAD hasn't exactly made it a high priority to properly work around that.
For example, the Topological Naming Problem (as I understand it) is made quite bad due to OpenCASCADE design - but as we've seen with 0.19 and later it is possible in a lot of cases to work around that. But that's a lot of really hard work with relatively little reward, so for years it languished on the backlog, and users had to deal with even trivial designs randomly blowing up in their face for no clear reason.
The result is a CAD program filled with footguns. Nobody wants to address structural issues, so you just pretend they don't exist, hide a half-baked tutorial on a Wiki on how to work around the worst of them, and blame the user for holding it wrong.
Commercial applications can solve this by shoveling copious amounts of cash at any skilled developer who is able to make any real-world improvement - even when it's not a perfect solution yet. FLOSS applications have to wait for a developer to come around who is masochistic enough to tackle it for free.
Question for someone who is very far away from this kind of development - why does CAD software need a kernel that’s wholly separate from the UI? Why aren’t they the same thing? I just don’t understand the abstraction that necessitates writing the software this way.
It is much like a game might use a physics engine, or a new language might use the LLVM backend. To overly simplify, a CAD kernel will keep a list of operations (make a cube of this size here, drill a hole of this depth here, round these edges but not those). And combine that into a final volume. These responsibilities only get more and more complex as a part gets more complex - so using a pre-built engine allows CAD software to focus on tools and workflows to translate human instructions into lower-layer kernel geometry: the UI/UX.
It also crosses into compatibility, if you use the same Kernel as another CAD it is much simpler to export/import from them. Otherwise you would have to reimplement their kernel (or enough of it), or be stuck exporting triangulated versions of the final volume - sort of like converting an image from vector to raster.
Same reason a browser uses a separate library for image decoding, or font rendering. A CAD kernel is a very complicated piece of heavily specialized math. The UI itself is there to let the user construct the input data for the CAD kernel and to display the resulting output. Doing that translation in a user-friendly way is already hard enough without having the kernel smeared out all over the rest of the application.
And then by the time they do get around to fixing the UI it seems the codebase is horribly bloated and littered with tech debt and now updating the UI would basically require a whole application rewrite. Which I have seen happen and work, but I also swear I've seen where teams spread themselves thin trying to make an updated UI version concurrently with their main branch only for the updated UI version to fall so far behind on features (or get worked on so rarely) that they abandoned it to fix it later...
Other open source projects should take note. It seems like UX is a complete afterthought for most and any suggestions for QoL improvements are met with hostility by the small fervent community telling everyone to go fork themselves.
No, the parent was right. A huge amount of "news" is meant to keep people distracted from anything meaningful that actually affects them. This is because the people with power have long understood how to keep the rest fighting amongst ourselves.
Everyone should use Canadian spelling as it's the intermediary between both British and USA spelling it makes the most sense for the Americans and Brits to adopt it.
Maybe we should take the definition from the mouth of an expert on fascism, Mussolini, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
This attribution leads to a truly fundamentally broken reduction of what Mussolini actually thought fascism was (though his own definition of it was largely pseudointellectual drivel).
But even then, "corporatism" doesn't mean "capitalism" at all.
reply