i maintain a codebase that uses Bonzai (https://github.com/hazelgrove/hazel/); agent based development works just fine, though probably a bit more token churn

not exactly the same, but worth noting that in a spectacular display of being too early, microsoft shipped this 30 years ago (active desktop in 1997 merged the windows explorer with internet explorer, turning folders into web pages).

It is despised for the same reason web based UI is despised today. Firefox OS was also “too early” and failed.

It was more despised for being a gaping security hole than anything else, as I recall - the things you could do with it were really neat demos, but even back then, I said "I am not loading a random website that can access local things every time I log in".

i assert that by your evidentiary standards humans don't reason.

presumably one of us is wrong.

therefore, humans don't reason.

all three are isomorphic. but in some languages if you define a function via something like `function myFun(x: Int, y: Bool) = ...` and also have some value `let a: (Int, Bool) = (1, true)` it doesn't mean you can call `myFun(a)`. because a parameter list is treated by the language as a different kind of construct than a tuple.

speed of plane is about 3% speed of satellite so i wouldn't expect handoffs to be much more frequent than with stationary receivers?

I see, stationary receiver already has to deal with this and plane speed doesn’t add much to the equation cause satellites already go brr.

Honestly that wasn’t intuitive in my head but makes a lot of sense, thanks!

we had nearly 2 centuries of roughly exponential growth. ended in the 60s but not everyone got the memo

Is "roughly exponential growth" being used as a synonym for "growth"?

Exponential is used as a scare word. It's not just growth, it's exponential growth! Run and scream in fright! Because if you don't do what I say you must do, we are exponentially doomed. Dooooomed!

I've done enough computer science work to be afraid of exponential growth.

i can't speak for everyone, but in the above assertion am using 'roughly exponential' to mean that world population between say 1880 and 1960 followed a curve that is, roughly, exponential, in the technical sense. much of the discourse 50 years ago, e.g. the population bomb, was predicated on this observation.

Rough is doing heavy lifting there, so much so that I suggest it doesn't have any meaning except to say the population was growing. The growth from 1980 to 1960 certainly was not exponential: the percentage growth per year was all over the place, varying on the same time scale as the doubling time (or even faster).

https://ourworldindata.org/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/qLq-8BTgXU8...

I suspect it's not a coincidence that the population bomb scare occurred right after the collapse of European colonialism, although teasing out the causation could be interesting.

> so no operator precedence seems like a massive foot-gun

how do you mean? given that spec, ambiguous code just won't compile. that could potentially be inefficient, but not a foot gun.

not obvious to me this makes things better as opposed to worse? sure, the time bound helps but in the runup to a crunch won't we get vastly more devices in causal range at an asymptotically increasing rate?

Who’s there doing the counting? I would assume the temperatures at those extremes won’t support life in its known forms.

Perhaps some Adamesque (as in douglas adams) creature whose sole purpose is to collect all unique UUIDs and give them names.

Runup to the crunch is a looong time lots of which is probably very habitable. in 5 billion years life can arise from scratch become conscious and exterminate itself

never thought about it before but after playing with it a while i notice i tend to approach from the right, which means moving out if i'm inside on the right side. i think this is because my positioning accuracy seems to be higher moving leftwards than rightwards...

for better or for worse, most specific scientific jargon is already going to be in english