Just juggling with balls in the air gets boring very quickly, and the added numbers don't make it much different. Learning statics and flows from contact juggling, but performing them with standard juggling balls is so much more fun. And then you discover statics with hoops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF6UuPsw2i4

Re. "CAD/BIM", technically speaking CAD doesn't imply BIM, and the industry's promotion of BIM is akin to AI promotion among software engineering teams - the benefits aren't clear upon detailed review of the advertised capabilities. The CAD part, on the other hand, is generally recognized as the essential tooling for the profession and I'm surprised to hear that it just is a "wonderful aspiration".

"The profession" actually is a wide variety of trades, not just architects and contractors. Electricians, plumbers etc. where CAD is not yet widely spread. Which hopefully will change in the near future, with open source BIM tool chains, boosted by generative/agentic AI.. Finally, a huge source of confusion and execution hiccups will be overcome.

Until then pdf rules!!!

Generalizing with "everything", "all", etc exclusive markers is exactly the kind of black/white divide you're arguing against. What happened to your nuanced reality within a single sentence? Not everything is black and white, but some situations are.

The person he's replying to argued against putting things on a spectrum. Does that not imply painting everything in black and white? Thus his response seems perfectly sensible to me.

He argued against putting things in a spectrum in many instances where that would be wrong, including the case under the question. What's your argument against that idea? LLM'ed too much lately?

He argued against and the response presented a counterargument. Both were based around social costs and used the same wording (ie "everything").

You made a specious dismissal. Now you're making personal attacks. Perhaps it's actually you who is having difficulty reasoning properly here?

I find the other article that the author refers to in his text, to be more thorough and revealing: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-ai-industry-is-lying-to-you/

Speaking as the author of the original article, I wholeheartedly agree! :D

The industry will adapt quickly, especially the part that's using multiplatform mainstream engines like UE/Unity.

Lots of new/recent native MacOS releases nowadays: https://store.steampowered.com/macos

The same that support Linux and yet Valve has to come up with Proton.

Developers chase the user base. If and when the users choose Linux developers will target Linux.

Proton as a project let's valve hedge on the heir apparent OS without upfront developer cost. If the Linux player base grows, developers will follow and valve is poised to remain dominant.

He had better spend $250k worth of tokens on it

if you don't find currying essential you haven't done pointfree enough. If you haven't done pointfree enough you haven't picked equational reasoning yet, and it's the thing that holds you back in your ability to read abstractions easily, which in turn guides your arguments on clarity.

if only there was a difference between native languages aiming at lossy fluency (feels better) and programming languages aiming at deterministic precision.

> I feel the successful OS projects will be the ones embracing the change

You'll have to embrace the `ccc` compiler first, lol

game theory doesn't expand into continuous rounds of interactions over the course of a lifetime where previous rounds' outcomes are either reset or persist based on other actors entering the game from the open world, so it really is an inferior framework for evaluating long-term strategies.