I think this is going to depend strongly on population. Average age of the mother, width of the pelvic canal, and similar are going to vary widely with culture, race and country.
Computer UIs needed borders and outlines because there are no brain-intuitive visual cues: no depth parallax, no shading, nothing shifts as you move your head, and until relatively recently they had poor contrast and brightness variability compared to the real world.
It was also a compromise for interface device limitations. We didn't have 4000 DPI mice with scroll wheels and 26 configurable buttons; you were lucky to have a 1024x768 resolution; and 16 bit color was for people shelling out $$$. Obvious borders and some padding between elements were a necessity to click what you intended to click.
Sad watching Apple design repeat Microsoft’s mistake of trying to push through a single UI paradigm across mobile and desktop (and, especially, VR in Apple’s case)
I think the gigantic prevalence of huge or lifted trucks is a bigger influence, especially given the tendency to mod them out (poorly) with aftermarket lights.
Truck headlights are already on a level with sedan drivers' eyes. There are far more F-150s on the road than there are Teslas.
Biomedical research in the US has taken an absolute nose-dive several times over the past decade or two. This was my field for the past 20 years, so I'm fairly familiar.
It requires enormous capital investment and a very, very long time to turn out meaningful results, so it's only available to those with corporate-depth pockets or government subsidies. It also requires a broad and deep skill set.
With the FDA, USDA, NIH, CDC and DoEd all being gutted, the subsidies are gone. Academia can no longer support a huge swath of biomedical research.
> US has taken an absolute nose-dive several times over the past decade or two
This is also my field... and if the nose-dive is what has delivered in these past two decades RNA-seq, induced pluripotent stem cell generation, CRISPR-mediated genome therapies, CAR-T therapy, single-cell RNA and DNA profiling, spatial transcriptomics, targeted GLP- and incretin-modulation therapies? Then that's a wonderful nosedive.
The capital investment has always been true if you want to do R1 research. But you don't have to do that at all! There's also Oxford Nanopore, tons of open data through NCBI and other resources, more open papers than ever.
> It also requires a broad and deep skill set.
Yes. Like anything, being good takes time.
> Academia can no longer support a huge swath of biomedical research.
Maybe. I think there will be money for things that affect the rich (incurable cancer, longevity) and for things that are sexy to the unsophisticated (CZI Biohub 'OpenCell'). But there is money in this, so I don't think academia (to wit, people who know how to do research) will go away, just will change.
You report an error and exit cleanly with a proper operating system error code. Crashing is a quick hack, acceptable for throwaway projects but not in software used long-term.
I think you're using "crash" to mean "exit early". I am using "crash" in the sense of "this program did something causing the OS to terminate it externally". I suppose that's a real point of difficulty in communication across different programming languages.
We agree that the program should exit early. I think we agree it should do it cleanly and intentionally. I'm adding the constraint that "crash" doesn't necessarily mean "cleanly and intentionally", especially when talking about a C program.
There's a position in between "exit cleanly" and "general protection fault, core dumped" where the process essentially does the internal equivalent of SIGKILLing itself.
I.e. either intentionally (e.g. tripping an assertion failure), or accidentally due to some logic-failure in exception/error-handling, the process ends up calling the exit(3) syscall without first having run its libc at_exit finalizers that a clean exit(2) would run; or, at a slightly higher runtime abstraction level, the process calls exit(2) or returns from main(), without having run through the appropriate RAII destructors (in C++/Rust), or gracefully signalled will-shutdown to managed threads to allow them to run terminating-state code (in Java/Go/Erlang/Win32/etc), or etc.
This kind of "hard abort" often truncates logging output at the point of abort; leaves TCP connections hanging open; leaves lockfiles around on disk; and has the potential to corrupt any data files that were being written to. Basically, it results in the process not executing "should always execute" code to clean up after itself.
So, although the OS kernel/scheduler thinks everything went fine, and that it didn't have to step in to forcibly terminate the process's lifecycle (though it did very likely observe a nonzero process exit code), I think most people would still generally call this type of abort a "crash." The process's runtime got into an invalid/broken state and stopped cleaning up, even if the process itself didn't violate any protection rules / resource limits / etc.
It's a very language-dependent meaning. In C, the only type of crash is the OS shutting it down on some sort of trap. Everything else is the result of an explicit code path. Since we're talking about C, it's the definition I'm using. In other contexts, other definitions will apply.
Definitely! An interesting distinction. I spend much of my time in the BEAM these days, where "let it crash" is a common practice with a very distinct meaning (green threads under supervisor trees, etc). Different strokes.
Yes, polar regions are reliably colder than equatorial regions. Lytton, BC hit the temperature you cite for one day on Tuesday, June 29, 2021. That's a sign of warming, and we should expect more warm days than in the past at any given lattitude. But it is not evidence against the general case that polar regions have colder climates than equatorial regions.
Complexity doesn't necessarily mean it's suboptimal. Lithography and nanofab are usually doing a whole range of disparate and wildly exotic processes with extreme vacuum, plasmas, electron guns; any number of crazy and dangerous process gases like H2, HF, or silane; and occasionally raw materials like iridium and rhodium. And that's all without the actual lithography. When your margin for error is measured in single atoms and your number of features per die outnumber the planet's population 2:1, physical laws start to stand in the way of simplification.
The one 'machine' encompasses more disciplines than most universities offer. It's really a whole bleeding edge factory compressed into a room.
