Before cider there was Brightly. My recollection was that it was developed by a team in Atlanta and got cancelled before it reached general availability. People were pissed at the time (ex. "cancelling brightly considered harmful"). That died down when Cider delivered on what Brightly had promised.
The days of using Eclipse were particularly bleak. These days I use Antigravity for the overwhelming majority of my work.
This is what I'm here for. Indeed the Atlanta team bet it all on Brightly, and while it was so ahead of its time, it didn't get enough of an uptake to satisfy... certain executives in engineering.
They subsequently shuttered Atlanta and it would take five or more years before they'd allow engineers there again.
It was very Google. Lost some truly talented (Hi Bruce!) software engineers who would go on to make terrific software elsewhere.
No, Critique existed before the quick edit feature was added to Code Search.
While I think the quick edits were worthwhile, it became too much too support both it and Cider (and edits in Critique), so it was removed to streamline things. As Cider became better, I think it was an okay trade-off.
However, experience with it led to my sense that Python just doesn't scale (especially back then, without type annotations) past a certain size of program.
The Code Search team had been re-inventing its UI and changing a lot (changing its focus from external to internal), and had the inspiration to leverage what they'd done to create Critique. They sold Mountain View on it, and made history. Exciting times.
I was the eng manager for that for a bit, added some APIs to use to do code reviews inside of Eclipse or IntelliJ. That idea never took on, but when when I showed it to the code search team in Munich, they loved it.
No I mean that in code search you could click "edit" and just change something, which would then post a CL immediately, which you could set to auto-approve, for quick changes.
I believe it was part of cider (the first non-vscode version)
The first version was part of Code Search proper, and wasn't super useful for much more than just typo fixes, since it was essentially just a textarea edit box. That was eventually deprecated and replaced with a button that did the same thing, but opened in Cider instead.
This was pretty common with £1 coins until they moved to bimetallic coinage. The fakes would be rejected by vending machines.
The biggest tells were poor reeding quality and slightly soft detailing. On very low quality fakes, the face and obverse weren't aligned, though I never encountered one of these in the wild.
Back in the 2000s/10s I had a little jar of various £1 and a couple 50p I was certain were fake. Interestingly the fake £1 I got most frequently were -from- vending machines - I wonder if those refilling them slipped them in?
Sadly not sure where they are now, they were also mixed in with a good few £5 coins I bought, I used to love paying for things with a £5 coin. Hope I find them again!
> I wonder if those refilling them slipped them in?
I recall reading that they were smuggled into the country by organized crime. They'd then sell them for around 60p on the pound to coin heavy businesses (esp. laundry and vending.)
Really? Man that's a shame, you used to be able to 'buy' them at the post office for £5 - so I'd get at least £50worth a month and spend them around east London, I seemed to find it hilarious at the time - but after a quick chat I don't remember anyone refusing them anywhere.
He was also, in my experience, a bit of a jerk. As an undergrad I asked him "with oligo synthesis improving is there any way we stop bad actors from making recombinant pathogens?" His reply was "we can start by arresting people like you." My advisor worked with him at Celera and a decade on the amount of acrimony towards the public project was palpable.
This is being pedantic. Actually, I'm not even sure it's pedantic so much as just wrong. Such is also the case for rolling shutter cameras, the top of the frame is older than the bottom. That's why you get strange artifacts when recording video of fast rotating objects on your smartphone. But we still call it a single exposure.
That's a fair point. I was comparing the claim to rolling vs global shutter rather than "take a photo, rotate, take a photo." You can, however, get a true global shutter single exposure panorama using anamorphic lenses.
If you're talking about uranium enrichment, that's like saying we increased the amount of gasoline on earth (by refining crude oil). Natural uranium is ~99% non-fissile, and ~1% fissile, and we're only removing part of the non-fissile isotope to obtain 5% concentration of the fissile isotope. Uranium still needs to be mined, spent fuel can be partially recycled, but you need some new natural uranium input in the end. That said, non-renewability of uranium is a non-issue IMO, compared to the huge amounts of other non-renewable resources we're extracting.
Tack on a reckless driving charge and a speeding ticket.
reply