Whenever I read about Geo engineering stuff like this, I remember the last episode of "Dinosaurs" [0] and immediately get a bad feeling about it. Hopefully I'm just paranoid.
The most compelling of fiction tends to be compelling because it's based on reality. History is chock full of grand ideas intended to achieve some desired outcome only to create far worse problems than that you aimed to solve.
Irrigation has destroyed entire seas, crop pests have been near exterminated only to learn those pests were eating far more dangerous pests - resulting in mass starvation, and so on endlessly.
This entire idea really seems like the sort of action we're really not thinking through. Even the article points this out... "What’s not easy to quantify is what happens after the CO2-depleted effluent is returned to the sea. Theoretically, if.." To say nothing of the million other possible issues mostly just handwaved away.
There's hard sci-fi, for starters. Even outside that realm, nothing wrong with using them as cautionary tales. Asimov's tales excel at this, even if they're not "physically accurate"; who tf cares about that, honestly.
No one in their right mind would treat this literature as if they were textbooks.
In another article about the network abstraction layer "NetChannel" [1], the author describes that ACK happens by sending "Sequence" numbers in the headers.
"I think that it's extraordinarily important that we in computer science keep fun in computing. When it started out, it was an awful lot of fun. Of course, the paying customers got shafted every now and then, and after a while we began to take their complaints seriously. We began to feel as if we really were responsible for the successful, error-free perfect use of these machines. I don't think we are. I think we're responsible for stretching them, setting them off in new directions, and keeping fun in the house. I hope the field of computer science never loses its sense of fun. Above all, I hope we don't become missionaries. Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen. The world has too many of those already."
It's called Osiris and they state it "is a mostly declarative programming language, similar to Prolog" [1]
I think you get access to their engine if you buy one of their games through steam and you can mess with Osiris (not sure if that's still true for BG3, but it was the case for Divinity: Original Sin).
If you mean by "the opposite" that everybody believes the same thing, then theoretically yes. However, that is very unlikely and I assume there will always be people with different views/opinions.
The more you put people into "separate boxes", the more you segregate them. And I agree with the previous reply that religion is one of those things that puts you in a specific box.
I think they mean that people in large groups segregate themselves into smaller ones, by whatever characteristics available. If they had the same religion they’d be separated into orthodox and progressive versions of it, or people who had come off well out of the last great flood vs people who got screwed by it. And then they’d create a religion as explanation for the flood and why it was from god/the devil.
> The build system requirement may seem minor if you’re already a Zig programmer, but it’s massive if you want to attract C systems programmers.
You won't need knowledge of the build system nor a 'build.zig'.
After step 4 you would run 'zig translate-c' on 'foo.h'. Then use '@import' instead of '@cImport' in step 5 for the translated file.
'@cImport' is basically just doing that under the hood. It's an additional step for the user, that's a fair point, but I definitely wouldn't call it massive.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changing_Nature