Death is a moral responsibility. You owe your existence to evolution. Evolution would not work if we had to compete for resources with all of the organisms that came before us when they didn't die off. Death is an integral part of living a bringing our species forward. Your responsibility is to make the best of your time here. Have fun, love, and contribute to society and science if you can. Then die and make room for the next generations.
A moral responsibility under which moral framework ?
Why do I owe anything to my genes or the process that created me nearly by accident ?
Why do I not have a moral responsibility to find a better path than random evolution ?
Evolution isn't a person, or an entity to be compensated. It's a natural process. If humans can surpass it, find a new way to improve themselves, then do it. All of this argument seems like one extended appeal to nature, combined with some backwards-justified reasoning as to why being limited in time is a good thing - start with the premise that our lives are short, and then find a way to make that sound appealing.
I don’t think you get to ‘surpass’ evolution with regards to increasing life span. Maybe you can retard the process. But I think that is just kicking the can down the road.
Its like an old growth forest not being allowed to burn, it’s caretakers keeping it in media res for as long as possible until it eventually burns anyway and the natural cycle continues.
Evolution doesn't have a "forward". If we were unable to outcompete our ancestors, then we simply wouldn't be better adapted to our environment than they.
It's pretty bloated and slow compared to alternatives. This may improve if WasmGC gets integrated instead of part of the payload, but it's still not a great solution, especially on constrained devices. The flip side, is running in server mode means the laggy round trip actions that feel somewhat painful in contrast, reminding me of ASP.Net WebForms and how painful that was in practice.
So much was so right about PowerShell. But it failed to attract a wider audience, and in their quest to woo Linux devs Microsoft has been undermining PowerShell lately. Knowing what PowerShell offers, falling back to bash CLI tools feels like two steps back.
Just some of the stuff PowerShell did right:
- PowerShell cmdlets are self-describing and rich in information. Rather than each command doing its own parsing of parameters, cmdlets describe parameters and delegates the actual parsing to the shell. The shell understands data types, parsing rules, e.g. how to parse a UUID or a date. Not only does this ensure a consistency that was never in *sh shells, but it also enables cool stuff like e.g. autocomplete, predictive input, help instructions etc. almost for free.
- "Simulation" mode (-Confirm and -WhatIf) where a cmdlet can describe the action it is about to take, and the mode of the shell may decline everything (effectively a "simulation mode") or may actually ask the user for permission (-Conform) for each action.
But, alas, PowerShell never caught on outside Windows, and now MS is leaving it to wither in their quest to not upset a wider non-Windows community.
The first .NET Blazor "webassembly" was the .NET runtime ported to Webassembly, but where developer code would actually be the same type of IL (Microsoft's Intermediate Labguage) as .NET runs on Windows and Linux.
Unlike those platforms however, the IL was actually interpreted by the ported .NET runtime. Only the runtime was actually running as WASM.
To this day this is still the default, but now you can use a compiler to compile from IL to WASM, and then run full WASM code in the browser. This toolchain is a bit slower on build, but the code will run much faster.
Such an app needs to download a megabyte of runtime. This isn't tiny. Yet, for corporate apps I think it's okay? Apps start reasonably quickly, although not instantly, maybe 2 seconds.
> Worse, it won't ever work if you intended it to be a JavaScript replacement because it cannot integrate into the interaction of the surrounding page, because it is a sandbox without compromise
That is a pretty bold statement considering that Blazor actually does allow you to ditch JavaScript and very much integrates with the surrounding page.
It is true that for manipulating the DOM, Blazor internally needs to go through JavaScript as there are no direct WASM-to-DOM binding (yet).
But you, as a developer, can develop sites that runs its interactivity using webassembly instead of Javascript.
I believe because the C# version has been written using rectangular arrays. This requires every array access to use a multiplication. The Java version uses array-of-arrays and hoisting the inner array out before accessing it in the inner loop.
C# also has arrays-of-arrays, and could (should) be written in the same manner.
I've just done this and it has been merged. The benchmarks table and image haven't been updated yet. But this should bring the C# result to ~2s instead of 4.67s
I use grocery store apps where I can scan the items with my phone as I put them in my bag. Checkout is then only swipe to pay. There are occasional random inspections, otherwise I completely skip the checkout lines.
Here in Denmark we also have a driver's license app. The app has a feature through which the user can identify themself to another party using the same app on their phone.
When used to identify, the app displays a series of QR codes which can be recorded by the 2nd phone through the camera. No need to hand over th e phone. It tranfers identifying information such as name, age and the photo so that the 2nd party can use it to validate on their screen.
Blazor - until .NET 8 - came in Blazor Server and Blazoe Webassembly variants.
Blazor Server renders the DOM at the server and sends it to the browser. The server also holds on to some state for each client - notably the "current DOM" - so that it can calculate diffs on changes and only send the diffs to the browser.
Blazor Webassembly does the rendering in Webassembly in the browser. The .NET stack runs in the browser. Here, the code renders and diffs in the browser and the the diffs are applied to the DOM as well.
This also means that the same components can run either server-side or client-side. They basically all end up computing DOM diffs and applying those diffs to the actual DOM. Pretty neat, actually.
Each model has it's pro and cons. Blazor Server initialized really quickly and relies on minimal Javascript in the browser. But it creates load and server affinity on the server. Blazor Webassembly offloads all rendering to the browser, but at the cost of an initial load of the code.
In .NET 8 these can now be blended, and a new "auto" mode allows a component to be initially server-side and then client-side when the webassembly code has downloaded.
In addition to that is now (.NET 8) also the static server side rendering (and "enhanced navigation") which you could say is server side components without the "circuit" server affinity and server state of each client. Static server side rendering has some limitations on how interactive they can be - i.e. changing the DOM.
"The server also holds on to some state for each client"
If this is how Blazor is architected. Then I have no interests in using this and really anyone doing any type of web development shouldn't bother with this. Internal apps eventually need to be used externally. This is a time bomb waiting to explode on the users and the developers.
I use VueJS with Asp.net Core with multi-page single load architecture. Meaning once a page is loaded all other data is loaded through ajax. But the app is made of multiple pages. Over 10 years of being a web developer has brought me to this setup. Client UI state should stay on the client. All other state should be saved to the server. All communication should be stateless.
> This is a time bomb waiting to explode on the users and the developers.
I'm just saying a lot of the target they are aiming to replace is VBA applications slapped on top of Access DBs, and Lovecraftian nightmares born out unholy fornication of Batch scripts and unintelligible spreadsheet formula.
I'm not saying your wrong, just pointing out that even if this is a ticking time bomb it's a ticking time bomb that is using conventional explosives replacing a cesium based nuclear time bomb that is already counting down the seconds.
