I think he means the exact same Python script can be run directly on any environment that has Python installed if written correctly, in contrast to a C program which has to be recompiled on various environments to be able to run.
One of them is. And ability to interpret Python is requirement for any python program to be able to run. Being able to build and deploy a c lib is not.
So, someone has made python run on Foo platform, lets say a watch. If I have a pure python program I can run it on that watch with no more fuss. If I have to rely on a c library then I have to get that ported to Foo platform, maybe dealing with developer keys and making "authorized" signed binary, etc, etc. Pure python is orders of magnitude easier.
That is why "Pure Python" is a thing.
Several standard libs come in pure python and C versions cause pure python is an advantage / requirement for some use cases. And speed is for others.
Python as a language is implemented on almost every platform out there- You can just take this source code and run it there, instead of compiling for the target hardware.
> Wikipedia is good for historical references (pre 1900 or so), and a good place to start if you just don't know anything about the thing you're looking up.
Whenever I see people say stuff like this I mentally replace what they said with "Wikipedia is a general-knowledge encyclopedia." Not a dig at you, but this should have always gone without saying.
IIRC research has shown that this isn't true. Britannica had a higher error rate. It is flatly absurd to claim that wikipedia is less complete than any other encyclopedia,which are all under 1% its size. Wikipedia's isn't 99% anime junk.
Meh, Americans also don't like dying horribly and will freakout if they think something makes that more likely. The FDA is relatively conservative compared to many other countries and, especially after Thalidomide, most people probably appreciate that.
I haven't used Photoshop in quite a few years, but I'm pretty sure it works (or worked) the same way as Gimp. Maybe people who do a lot of work in image editing software are accustomed to this workflow? It seems reasonable, since exporting flattens layers and such, which a professional would probably want to preserve (and may not want to risk accidentally losing).
In PS you have "save as" dialogue in which you pick extension, and "save for web" which additionally lets you fine-tune optimisation.
In gimp ctrl+s brings you "save image" dialogue that explictly forbids you from saving anything but XCF, which I too find very annoying when doing quick fixes in batch of graphics that don't have xcf source.
IIRC, the workflow in Photoshop is this: If you open a photo file, and when you press save there is only one layer in the file, pressing ctrl+s will not change the file format. Generally this means that minor changes (crop, recolor) preserve file types, while larger ones require you to export.
I don't use PS, but in my use case this behaviour is really annoying. Maybe I am not their target user, I don't know - the problem is that Gimp is really nice piece of software and it is exactly what I need.
I am baffled why they changed this and why they stick to this decision. But it looks like there is a plugin which fixes that (see one of the other answers), so - yay! :)
> This will probably be the last release. I won't be able to work on Shoebill going forward (by contractual obligation), so I wanted to race out one last release.
Really sad that companies put these kinds of restrictions on their employees...
Well considering that the author went on to work at Apple, it sort of makes sense. I don't think he was explicitly told not to continue development, but it is likely that some sort of boilerplate part of his contract restricts him.
The project depends on reverse-engineering proprietary (if archaic) Apple hardware/software.
Do you think Microsoft would/should allow their employees to contribute to Wine? Or Nintendo employees working on open-source emulators?
Do you think I should allow you to drink tea? You'd probably say, "you can't allow or disallow that, you don't have that power." That's what I think Microsoft's position should be with regard to their employees' free time.
I share your view. However, I can also see the employer's perspective in a scenario like the project for the company ships late but all employee's commits to the open source project the employee founded or participates are all timely.
I won't sign a contract the restricts what I do on my free time. Any place that does that is not a place for me.
I can see the employer's perspective as you describe it, as in "psychopaths might think this way," but I can't sympathize with it. I think this is something we need to regulate, just like we say employees can't tell you what god to worship or whether to have children.
Silly me, I didn't get back here in time to delete my comment! But we're probably long off the home page by now, so nobody cares much about a little clutter... :-)
Doing anything else is a form of slavery. Most people are somehow OK with it. That company basically owns you 0-24 and everything you produce for a hand-full of cash.
I don't know a ton about Common Core (I don't have kids and I'm not a teacher). However, I know enough to agree with you that, assuming they got it right, Common Core should be a terrific thing. However, I spent some time helping a young relative with her math homework and it didn't inspire much confidence. Not because the assignment wasn't attempting to teach the things you mention (once I figured it out, I thought it was a great assignment), but because the assignment's instructions were vague and apparently incomplete. I struggled t figure out, based on the instructions, what the finished product should even look like. If they want to get parents on their side, they have to at least make it so that parents can check students' work, if not understand it themselves.
The instructions may [or may not] be more readily interpreted in the context of a student who has had the relevant classroom instruction. That's been my experience as parent of a student taught under the Common Core.
But I think you've hit the nail. As in the article, the primary problem discussed is selling Common Core to parents and the no sale is generally "I don't understand this" coming from the parent. Whether Common Core is better or worse, it is not surprising that a new methodology is unfamiliar to adults trained under an older rather orthogonal one. That's what mostly drives the politics of public education and politics of public education is why your young relative had homework in the first place despite little vetted data supporting its imposition.
Disclaimer: My first reaction to Common Core was similar to my first reaction to Montessori - what the fuck are they doing, that's not the way I was taught. My current position is likewise the same, the results have been great and I am still not an expert in primary education despite my lack of effort to become one.
This is kind of a side note, but is the idea of parents checking homework new to most people? Is it something that teachers now expect parents will be doing?
I had a third grade teacher in the mid 90s (New York state) who required that a parent sign each homework assignment, or else it would be regarded as incomplete. That might have been unusually strict, but the concept of parents checking homework seemed fairly normal.
At a minimum, when children don't understand the assignment, they usually turn to their parents for help. If the parents can't understand the assignment well enough to help the children, that's a hindrance to the children learning.
While your concerns and point are valid, remember that teaching methods have nothing to do with Common Core. Common Core does not specify teaching methods.
The same can be said for private companies. The difference is that private companies are allowed to weasel out of their obligations and the federal government picks up their pension responsibilities... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corpo...
Which is one reason that most private companies now offer defined contribution plans rather than defined benefit plans. That way a worker isn't dependent on the foresight, goodwill, or even existence of his past employer for his retirement. It is a far better for everyone involved. And if workers are nervous about investing these contributions into risky instruments they can use them to buy deferred annuities from AAA rated insurance companies and build their own "pensions".
> buy deferred annuities from AAA rated insurance companies and build their own "pensions".
Which, in a post-financial crisis world, also obviously involves relying on government-backing of the insurance companies and bailouts when ratings agencies hand out AAA ratings like candy. Ultimately, only the government can guarantee people a retirement. Which is why I personally think we should say "screw it" and just guarantee everyone a reasonable (livable) payout from social security...
I think you may be conflating AAA rating of a security with AAA rating of a company. It is an easy mistake to make because the rating companies have deliberately conflated the two in order to sell more structured products rating services.
In contrast to the structured products ratings, the corporate ratings have held fairly well. For life insurance subsidiaries, which are the units that sell annuities, there is even further protection. The law requires insurance subsidiaries to be bankruptcy remote from their parents, and regulates the types of risks they can take on.
To take a famous example, even if AIG had been allowed to go bankrupt, it's life insurance subsidiary -- American General Life Insurance Company -- would not necessarily have been insolvent, and indeed retrospective analysis seems to indicate it would have been fine.
I should mention that all this safety comes at a cost, implied return rates for annuities aren't terribly impressive. But that's the nature of the beast, return and risk are proportional.
Then quit and take a lower-stress job. Once you're at that point you can afford it (in fact most people in that position these days could just quit and reduce their living costs, maybe not even that). I think that's what GP was saying.
That is definitely not true. Federal recognition brings a host of abilities for a people to organize including the ability to form a government and other institutions.
Source: I work there, although I have literally nothing to do with this project.