Do yourself a favor and get a USB stick with Linux on it, regardless of whether or not you are going to use it to install Linux.
When stuff breaks, you'll regret not having a bootable media like that. Also, if you are using windows and Bitlocker (the default these days), then be sure to store your encryption keys somewhere, where you can easily access them. Otherwise you won't be able to access your Windows drives
Frankly, it sounds like neither of the two should lead the FSF
Well, maybe you’d better wait 10min instead of one, to make sure the led lightbulb heats enough, but still…
I tested this with a 5W IKEA LED light-bulb, since I was just doom scrolling, anyway:
This means that the solution either breaks down entirely, or is unreliable, since you are not (reliably) able to tell the first two buttons apart
In practice, type inference in Rust is not a problem since the language is so strongly typed. In fact, it is more strongly typed than both C and C++, and will force you to cast values explicitly in cases where C and C++ will happily mess up your variables without warning. The absence of type inference would also be a major pain, since nested types such as iterators can get quite complex and very verbose. If you've programmed using older C++ standards, then you know this pain
That's not quite true: Yes, your $99 license is a life-time license, but that license only includes 3 years worth of updates. After that you have to pay $80, if you want another 3 years worth of updates. Of course, the alternative is just putting up with the occasional nag, which is why I still haven't gotten around to renewing my license
I’ve started converting my ‘master’ branches to ‘main’, due to the fact that my muscle-memory has decided that ‘main’ is the standard name. And I don’t have strong feelings either was
No gods, no masters
What you are describing is something I would label "skepticism of science", rather than "scientific skepticism".
So out of curiosity, I did a bit of digging. As andioop mentioned, the term "scientific skepticism" has been used to denote a scientifically minded skepticism for a long time. For example, the Wikipedia article on Scientific Skepticism dates back to 2004 and uses this meaning. Similarly the well known skeptic (pro-science/anti-pseudoscience) wiki, RationalWiki, has linked the scientific method and "scientific skepticism" as far back as 2011, and currently straight up equates skepticism with scientific skepticism. You can also find famous skeptics like Michael Shermer using the term back in the early 2000s, in his case in his 'The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience', published in 2002. It was also used in papers such as this sociology paper by Owen-Smith, 2001. This is the meaning of the term that I am familiar with.
However, since about 2020, there has been more of the term "scientific skepticism" as a parallel to "climate skepticism" and "vaccine skepticism". For example, this paper by Ponce de Leon et al is just one of many I could find via a quick Google Scholar search. This, I take it, is how you use the term.
Personally, I'm probably just gonna keep using "scientific skepticism" to mean "scientifically minded skepticism", but will keep in mind that it can also mean "skepticism of science"
Wouldn't scientists be the ones employing "scientific skepticism"?
In what way does OOP feel shoehorned in with Python? I ask since that is not my own impression of the language.
Would you also be willing to share what language(s) you feel do(es) OOP without it being shoehorned in?
Typst’s biggest weakness is that the ecosystem is still young, so you may not be able to find equivalent packages to those you’ve been using in Latex. But for me, personally, it has been a joy to use