Haha, this is hardly a daily site, is it? I can't remember the last time I experienced a firefox-specific browser issue before this. 95%+ of my issues usually come from ublock
No doubt, OP’s site is niche (and very cool!), but between weird graphical rendering I’ve experienced in the past with Firefox and WebGL, among a number of just flat out broken forms - I just gave up.
I want Gecko to succeed as Chromium being a bully in the web space has been unfortunate, though I’m even more rooting for Ladybird.
I am not familiar with scene graphs, but what is the problem with borrowing or refcounting? This article showed how you can have multiple mutable references in Rust, even multiple mutable references running in parallel threads.
Ref counting is for ownership, it doesnt convey intent. It kind of accidently works but is the wrong abstraction, especially in code bases where ownership is known.
If you're building data structures that have specific requirements and you know you'll implement it correctly, you can use raw pointers like `*mut T`. That's why they're in the language, for when you need to do something that the borrow checker can't verify and don't want the overhead of runtime borrow checks.
At this point, I assume most LinkedIn users use AI to assist in generating posts anyway, so the distinction kinda becomes pointless. Nobody likes reading AI generated posts, and nobody ever really liked reading LinkedIn posts either.
At least you aren’t wasting time writing something that people don’t like reading by hand. I just assumed that AI is trained on executive communication which is why they sound like a CEO.
I read the whole thing, but I was questioning whether this was heavily AI-assisted or just very linkedin-coded. For me the biggest AI indicators were "From “arcane” to professional", "The results: From the playmat to the professional world" and your "actually owning a language" example. I can't imagine anyone writing those sentences, even long-time linkedin users.
Almost every word written in katakana is a loanword, and most of them come from English. There are many different words in Japanese that can be translated to "damage"/"harm"/"injury" etc., but I guess none of them carry the exact connotations that ダメージ does. I've noticed that loan words are very common in Japanese video games, sometimes for words that to me appear to have an exact match in Japanese. I don't know why they do this. There are also some writers that make an effort to avoid loan words and use more traditional Japanese, but this is not so common.
An example which I find amusing is お金ゲット！(okane getto, money get). There are perfectly valid Japanese alternatives to Getto, and to an English speaker, this sentence doesn't even make sense. That's not how "Get" is used in English grammar at all. But in Japanese it's kind of a playful way of saying you acquired something.
Kutuzov's genius of repeatedly pulling back until the Grande Armee was standing at the doorstep of their ancient capital, fighting one of the most stubborn battles in the Napoleonic era, yet loosing significantly more men than their attackers, and finally backing off, to behind their capital, allowing it to be plundered and burnt down during the occupation? (The city didn't burn down in a day, but a series of fires occurred almost every day until the Grande Armee left). Even when the attackers were retreating, he was still indecisive.
The main goal of Napoleon's invasion of Russia was to beat their military in a decisive battle long before reaching Moscow, forcing Alexander to comply with the continental system - a European trade embargo created by Napoleon to weaken the British Empire who have been hostile toward France since long before the French revolution. Alexander signed this trade embargo during the treaty of Tilsit of 1807, and had been breaking the treaty for years by allowing trade with the British.
The Russians did intend to fight, and set up redoubts several times close to the invading army, but would always retreat when the Grande Armée approached. The military leadership in Russia was very indecisive, caught up in internal rivalries and disagreements. It didn't help that a large part of their military leadership was German. Aside from small skirmishes, they only gave battle once they were practically standing at the doorstep of Moscow, in the battle of Borodino.
The 400,000 dead soldiers died mostly to disease. Recent studies have found evidence of Borrelia Recurrentis which causes a form of relapsing fever. The western soldiers wouldn't have had any exposure to this bacteria before, so they were particularly weak to it. It was also exceptionally hot during the summer while they were invading (when the majority of soldiers died), which contributed to spread of disease and exhausting the horses. Disease and dying horses did way more damage to the Grande Armée than the Russian military did.
The campaign was a military disaster (though the people at home might not be aware, due to slow information flow and propaganda), but it was not without aim, and it was not obvious to anyone that 70% of the army would die to disease before a single major battle.
I appreciate that you at least didn't propagate the myth that Napoleon invaded in the winter, or that he lost because Kutuzov "outsmarted" him by giving him free passage to Moscow and burning it down.
> There’s a particular kind of person who can’t accept that story at face value
I would hope that the majority of readers here are taking the story with a huge pinch of salt. Napoleon's invasion of Russia is one of the most misunderstood events in modern history. Maybe that's why it's so popular to use it as an anecdote - because it can be molded to mean whatever you like, and people probably won't question you.
> The 400,000 dead soldiers died mostly to disease.
I believe that in every major war of the 1800s, more soldiers died from disease than from combat.
Consider the War of 1812. "fully three-quarters of the war deaths resulted from disease, most commonly typhoid fever, pneumonia, malaria, measles, typhus, smallpox and diarrhea" - https://www.nps.gov/articles/military-medicine.htm
Oh, hey - in the Franco-Prussian War more soldiers died of combat than from disease (for the Germans, 28,000 battle deaths vs 12,000 by disease, and for the French, 77,000 battle deaths vs 45,000 by disease) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War , so I was wrong! Though those numbers exclude "162,000 German[ civilian deaths] in a smallpox epidemic spread by French POWs" and "450,000 French civilians dead from war-related famine and disease".
You are completely right. Disease has been the major killer in most military campaigns of history. The original post stated that 400,000 soldiers died "mostly from starvation and exposure", which isn't correct. However, loosing over a third of an army to disease in 52 days, before any major battle solely to disease (Allen, B. M., https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA398046.pdf), is unusually high.
Starvation became a major problem later as supply chains broke down, and exposure became a major problem on the retreat. Though the retreat from Moscow included only about 100,000 people.
The author wrote explicitly that they want to be compensated because they spent weekends writing the thing.
Any customer support that has to do with payments and license checks doesn't count.
Once you have a community of interested folks then fixing security issues and keeping things up to date is much easier. If there isn't enough interest then there isn't much of a monetizeable customer base anyway. It's self-regulating.
Venture Capital is how entrepreneurs get off the ground and are able to try out new ideas. It is of both the entrepreneur's interest and the investors' interest that the product or service being developed captures value in the market, so they can reimburse their original investments. Without Venture Capital, we are limiting business creation to people who are already wealthy, which severely limits the pool of potential creativity that the society can utilize.
We have regulations in place to make it more difficult and more risky for businesses to engage in immoral behavior, but these regulations usually appear after observing bad behavior.
reply