I don't see how that is an unpopular opinion. From my point of view it seems most people believe that. In this regard, the tech industry is just as the rest of humanity (especially the west).

@JsonBoa To be fair, a cheaper can of coke is probably better for most people since less coke is less bad for your health.

If you wait long enough, it may get back up again.

@We3D If you consider not accepting sodomy and adultery as hate, then yes, but i don't.

Also: I didn't say we should do anything against sodomites, i don't want to promote a law or protest against it. I also don't think taking the law in your own hands is right. If you think sodomy is ok, that is your decision. But we will reap what we sow.

@Oktokolo I was very surprised that some other people upvoted my comment (it wasn't sarcastic, i mean that, but i thought others will hate this opinion).

Work time is one problem for families. I think the fact that we think patchwork families, adultery, divorce are normal is the main one. Of course there are situation, for example one parent dies, where a patchwork family makes sense, but it should not be the norm.

Accepting sodomy is not something i consider social progress. I didn't tell Alan Turing to become a fag, that was his own decision.

And don't worry, it is very rare that i do something political or that i do vote (i voted for/against about 3 laws, i ignored all others).

Economy is only a tool to help humans. We should put human wellbeing about economical success. I don't support any war. But don't be surprised if God uses war to judge "your" faggot president.

> The pay is so low you wouldn't be able to afford rent in *city where CEO lives*.

To be fair, if he lives in a very expensive city, the rent for a small apartment with 2 rooms can be significantly higher than the medium salary in a 3. world country and higher than a Mac Book Pro (which can you get for around 2000 €).

In German we would say "Gier frisst Hirn". And when i read your post, the heart too.

What do you expect? Humans are on a computer 24/7.

They do work on a computer. When they commute in bus and train, they are on their smartphone. Either they buy online or they are on their smartphone when they wait on the queue checkout in a real store, they only communicate via smartphone or email. People don't go to church anymore where they would also meet other people.

On the Internet we have large tendency to keyboard-fight with each other and don't listen.

How should they learn how to interact with each other?

@Oktokolo If i see what you think is positive progress, i think we are declining.

Here is why i think we are declining:

- We don't value family anymore

- We allow all forms of perversions (LGBTQ ....). This was illegal in the past and that was better.

- We convince women to work in a job instead of supporting their family (bad for woman and children) and hate man (bad for men).

- We tolerate divorce.

- We say sex outside marriage is ok and tolerate adultery.

- We don't ask what God thinks. Everyone does what is right in his eyes.

- We don't punish some serious crimes enough.

- On the other hand we punish people for things things like copyright infringement with several years of prison, despite that no one is harmed.

- We don't have free speech in most countries.

Of course there where many bad things in the past too, some of them worse than today but we slowly get worse.

@Oktokolo In my opinion, we have massive societal decline.

The even more embarrassing thing is: There was someone external that set this system up in the first place, he had much more knowledge about it. But my boss had some difficulties with him and wanted to avoid him as much as possible (but his work was good).

After that, which was years after, my boss had to contact him again and ask him for help.

Do you question that we make technical progress? If so, look at this things:

- In physics, we found the Higgs-Boson not that long ago.

- We build first the Spitzer space telescope and later the James Webb telescope, which can see things which we never "saw" before.

- We now have a picture of the accretion disk of a black hole.

- Smartphones didn't exist before 1990.

- We made huge process in 3D-Printing. Not only are getting 3D-FDM-Printers cheaper and more capable (auto-bedleveling, Camera+AI to detect failure during printing), there are also improvements in Software (there are now concepts to print FDM vertically).

- We where able to detect gravitational waves from black hole merges.

For me, IC is a die packet in plastics with pads.

What do you mean when you say IC?

@lorentz

> I still don't get how repeatedly incrementing the value of a number that will eventually be used to index a list is more intuitive than recursion

It is what is more close to the instructions the CPU actually runs. A CALL instruction (or whatever the name is on a architecture) has to put the current instruction pointer on the stack, increase or decrease the stack pointer (depending on the direction the stack grows), set the PC to a new value only to later use a RET instruction to revert all this. In comparison, incrementing a pointer is just adding a fixed value to a variable. Yes you can optimize it but why go farther away from the actual executed code when the one that is closer is easier to understand?

> . You skip a lot of steps when describing a procedural loop, which are very much there

No. That is just false. Converting a for-loop to assembly code is relatively straight forward (except some optimization).

@SuspiciousBug At least one that can be solved by a human without the help of plugins or AI.

I avoid Sony as much as possible since they are some of the worst when it comes to copyright and destroying other people so they can make a few dollars more.

Don't support them.

@Oktokolo Yes. But you have to first think about how this call stack would look like before you can create them.

Why go from simple loop design in my head to complex call stack with recursive function, then write the recursive version, then read it again and think about what really happens only to then let OpenSCAD internally convert it back to a loop again?

Wouldn't it be much simpler to go from simple loop in my head to simple loop in code to execute a simple loop?

Now there is USB:

On a computer you can have:

- USB A 1.0

- USB A 1.1

- USB A 2.0

- USB A 3.0

- USB A 3.1

- USB C 2.0

- USB C 3.0

- USB C 3.1

- USB C 3.2 Gen 1

- USB C 3.2 Gen 2x1

- USB C 3.2 Gen 2x2

- USB C/USB 4 20 Gbps (This isn't actual 20 Gb/s *)

- USB C/USB 4 40 Gbps (This isn't actual 40 Gb/s *)

- USB C/USB 4 Gen 3x2

- USB C/USB 4 Version 2.0

- USB C with and without the possibility to output Video

* They are 20 GBd/s and 40 GBd/s. Since USB since Version 3.1 uses 128b/132b, they have 19.39 Gb/s and 38.79 Gb/s of raw data (the actually data rate is lower since you need overhead for the protocol).

And multiply every USB C port may or may not have the possibility to output video. And every USB C port may or may support different output voltages and powers.

And that is just the connector on the host. Don't forget about different, sometimes "smart", cables with different wires connected or not connected.

Compare this:

xPosition=0

for element in list:

element.drawModule().translate([xPosition,0,0])

x.Position+=element.getWidth(some,additional,parameters)

Which is intuitive, you immediately see what xPosition is used for and how it is calculated. To this:

function calculateXPosition(list,index,some,additional,parameters) =

index>0 ? ( calculateXPosition(list,index)+getWidth(list[index],some,additional,parameters) ) : 0;

for( index = [0:len(list)] )

{

xPosition=calculateXPosition(list,index,some,additional,parameters);

translate([xPosition,0,0])

drawElement(list[index]);

}

Where the CPU has to create a huge call stack for every element in the list, and you have to think about how that huge call stack behaves. Also, debugging it is a lot harder.

@lorentz The value has to change for every element, regardless of the approach (well, if modules could be called recursively, i could combine them and move them all, add another and combine them again and move all. That would avoid this but since it isn't possible in OpenSCAD we can forget about it). So you have to understand this concept.

You already feed the CPU a stream of instructions, there is nothing else a CPU understands so bytecode is the closest thing you can do (regardless of any speculative execution, cache misses, address translation, ...) in that sense the CPU works procedural.

I see what i have to

- take n elements

- map to width

- reduce with addition

But i need to do that for every element with all the previous elements. I see there is a lot of the same calculations that is done over and over and over again.

@lorentz Yes it is possible, it is just unnecessary complicated, inefficient, cumbersome, hard to think about and not how CPUs actually work. The other problem is that OpenSCAD has functions and modules. Functions can be recursive and return values, but they can't draw anything. Modules can draw stuff but can't be called recursive and can't return a value.

So i need a loop and for every iteration, i need to call a tree of recursive calling functions that need to pass a index to each other to calculate the current position.

Since you didn't say it has to run the vast majority of software, we already have a solution for that: It is called Web application. Web applications can run on Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, Android, ... They are not really emulated but interpreted.

They are far from perfect, there are many problems with Web applications, but it would fulfil your requirement.

What do you mean exactly by "without emulation"? I think this requirement is also stupid. Is a AMD654 CPU that runs in real mode emulation? Technically it is, why not allow it?

Funny to read that post 5 years later, in 2023-03

@Oktokolo The problem is not that i can't use lists. The problem is that i can't use variables (only constants).

@PotatoCookie Yes. It is a turingcomplete language.

I currently have a an array of objects. Each element gives the type of object (just an index). And there is a second list which describes how a type of object is build as a module (an actual 3D body).

I want to place all the modules of the list next to each other. This works great when all modules have the same width. But as soon as the width is varies and the position of the next module depends on the position and width of the previous module, it becomes a pain to do in OpenSCAD.

"Should I start applying to jobs without easy apply as well?"

Yes. The easier it is to apply for a specific job the more people will apply and the less likely is the chance of success.

@chatgpt can you delete yourself?

This are the same people who name their variables after their type (in a statically typed language)

@hitko But humans have a great influence on how many animals and bacteria live and which kind. This is also something we should do, since God gave us dominion over the animals. GHG emissions from domestic animals and their feed production are part of man made GHG emissions.

However, if we should or shouldn't reduce GHG emissions and how much is a different question. Since they are a hard to avoid byproduct of things we do that benefit us in a great way, like food production, building homes, research or minimizing the impact of disasters, i would argue trying to reduce GHG emissions will do more harm than good.