Too bad commenters are as bad as reading articles as LLMs are at handling complex scenarios. And are equally as confident with their comments.

This is a pretty level headed, calculated, approach DARPA is taking (as expected from DARPA).

Am I saying you are scientifically illiterate?

Based on the previous statements, yes. However, as a matter of fact, not necessarily insult.

The good news is you’re following up with questions and want to learn more, instead of doubling down. With curiosity you will become more literate.

Maybe you were born with all the knowledge of the human race, but the rest of us have to learn it.

The education system in the country you are from has failed you. Assuming you are in your mid-late teens, or older, scientific topics should have already been taught in what North America would call “middle school” (11-14 years old). That teaches you things like conservation of momentum.

There is a reason why it’s called illiteracy, because there is an expectation that the baseline level of education everyone in developed countries receives teaches them the fundamentals of how the world around them works. Without this fundamental understanding it’s not possible to understand more complex topics that build upon it, stunting growth.

They’re not on to anything here. As further stated by your comment.

Equal and opposite reaction.

There’s a law for this. The matter is “pushing” against the ship, it doesn’t have to push against anything else.

In fact having an atmosphere to push against actually reduces the effectiveness of thrust due to atmospheric pressure, which must be overcome. Which is why different engines are designed to run in atmosphere versus out of atmosphere.

If you throw a baseball in space you have transferred momentum to that baseball, pushing you back. You will move in the opposite direction (likely spin because you just imparted angular momentum onto yourself since you didn’t throw from center of mass)

Given how many people think that railguns have no recoil because “there is no explosion” they might actually seriously believe what they just wrote.

Scientific illiteracy is through the roof.

Or maybe it’s the same as it it’s always been it’s just that people that are scientifically illiterate are given platforms to speak their illiteracy as truth.

Doesn’t appear to show any charts on Chrome for mobile…

Seems to be a responsiveness issue, because it goes away in landscape mode, and the charts show.

Because your conservative funded news outlets have a very overt goal here.

The CEO is a right wing trump worshiper.

Dig into the company’s tweet history, and find archived tweets that were deleted for PR/white-washing reasons.

Long history of this stuff.

Yeah, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

RTF has many more features than markdown can reasonably support, even with your personal, custom, syntaxes that no one else knows :/

I use markdown for everything, as much as possible, but in the context of creating a RTF WYSIWYG editor with non-trivial layout & styling needs it’s a no go.

This is what fundamental scientific illiteracy gets you.

When you have no reference point for how the world around you works anything makes sense.

I mean… Every serious operating system already has some form of keyring feature right?

Not necessarily. There are many paths to exfiltrated data that don’t require privileged access, and can be exploited through vulnerabilities in other applications.

Yeah, and electron already has a secureStorage API that handles the OS interop for you. Which signal isn’t using, and a PR already exists to enable…

Never not UTC Everywhere.

https://utceverywhere.com/

Probably not. Having actually played with making a WYSIWYG editor as a learning project markdown is too simplistic for the formatting needs of any non-trivial text editing, as a serialized storage format.

You almost always end up back with your own data structure that you serialize into something like XML for storage. Or you end up supporting HTML or non-spec compliant syntax in your markdown.

And if you care about performance, you’re not actually working with XML, HTML, or Markdown in memory. You’re working with a data structure that you have to serialize/deserialize from your storage format. This is where markdown becomes a bit more tedious since it’s not as easy to work with in this manner, and you end up with a weird parsing layer in-between the markdown and your runtime data structures.

The commenter that’s downvoted is more correct than not IMHO (Also why are we downloading discussions??). Markdown is ill suited for “most WYSIWYG needs”. It tends to get augmented with XML or custom non-spec compliant syntax. The spec poorly supports layout (columns, image & media positioning, sizing…etc) and styling (font color, size, family, backgrounds…etc)

There are markup languages for this purpose. And you store the rich text as normal text in that markup language. For the most part.

It’s typically an XML or XML-like language, or bb-codes. MS Word for example uses XML to store the markup data for the rich text.

Simpler and more limited text needs tend to use markdown these days, like Lemmy, or most text fields on GitHub.

There’s no need to include complex technology stacks into it!

Now the real hard part is the rendering engine for WYSIWYG. That’s a nightmare.

The ecosystem is really it, C# as a language isn’t the best, objectively Typescript is a much more developer friendly and globally type safe (at design time) language. It’s far more versatile than C# in that regard, to the point where there is almost no comparison.

But holy hell the .Net ecosystem is light-years ahead, it’s so incredibly consistent across major versions, is extremely high quality, has consistent and well considered design advancements, and is absolutely bloody fast. Tie that in with first party frameworks that cover most of all major needs, and it all works together so smoothly, at least for web dev.

Holy shit that’s completely wrong.

It’s for sure AI generated articles. Time to block softonic.

This is a weird take given that the majority of projects relevant to this article are massive projects with hundreds or thousands of developers working on them, over time periods that can measure in decades.

Pretending those don’t exist and imagining fantasy scenarios where all large projects are made up of small modular pieces (while conveniently making no mention to all of the new problems this raises in practice).

Replace functions replace files and rewrite modules, that’s expected and healthy for any project. This article is referring to the tendency for programmers to believe that an entire project should be scrapped and rewritten from scratch. Which seems to have nothing to do with your comment…?

This thread is a great example to why despite sharing knowledge we continually fail to write software effectively.

The person you’re arguing with just doesn’t get it. They have their own reality.