Its been the standard in Europe also. This has been changing, but only recently.

Yes, it is still a quartz watch. The oscillator is still a quartz oscillator. However the mechanism which advances the second hand is replaced with onethat does not need to tick.

The kind of quartz watch is no longer a ticking quartz watch, it is a non-ticking quartz watch.

As for the specific wording of the article, I would assume the authoris not fully versed in partsof quartz watches, and does not know that the oscillator which keeps time is different from the stepping motor which moves the hands.

This invention targets only replacing the stepping motor, not the oscillator.

Thats exactly the proposition. Eliminate tifking quartz watches in favor of non-ticking quartz watches.

Say goodbye to the quartz watches that do tick replace them with ones that do not tick

French innovator aims to consign ticking quartz watches to history

The ‘ticking’ is what is being consigned to history. The article is about an alternative to ‘ticking quartz watches’, a non-ticking quartz watch

Its the ‘ticking’ part of ticking quartz

exactly this. If I need to do development, i’ll use a jetbrains product. If i’m in a pure text editing situation, I want the most powerful thing for manipulating text, and I want it to be available.

Vim can have some IDE-like qualities, if you bolt enough plugins in to it, but by default it affords buttinx text in a file and manipulating it.

I woudn’t classify it as an ide though.

the Isreali government has a long and increasing history of systematic oppression of palestinian people, both inside and outside of the occupied palestinian territories. https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/

Also, remember Human Resources Machine. Its a puzzle game thats actually a progamming language

The one wheel works by having the rider lean in a direction to go that way. The more you lean, the faster it goes. It balances by pushing the rider in that direction. The trick is when you are leaning and going very fast, but then the board loses power and can’t push you anymore. Then the board nose dives and ejects you. Its the physics of the board, so they can warn you it might happen, but not prevent it.

Fuck, if I was doing ecommerce on salesforce commerce cloud, I would hate programing too. The plus side is that you have something on the resume now. That makes a huge difference in your job prospects now. Its not the hottest market, but you do have a way to pay the bills so you can take some time. Just start applying again, is my advice

Scare pieces like this are created by people who have no actual understanding of software.

Software is the automation of conceptual tasks. Some of these, like taxes or text editing, were fairly procedural and automated early. Others, like identifying birds or deepfaking celebreties, are dificult and were done later.

Creating software is another conceptual task, and it might be possiple to automate it. But once we have automated creating software, automating any other task becomes trivial as well.

If this ever comes to pass, there are no safe majors.

Both styles have advantages and disadvantages. Fully procedural code actually breaks down in readability after a certain length, some poeple suggest 100 or maybe 200 lines, depending on how much is going on in the function.

Blanket maxims tend to to have large spaces where they don’t apply.

Additionally, the place where the code on the right is more likely to cause bugs and maintainability issues is the mutation of the pizza argument in the functions. Argument mutation is important for execution time and memory performance, but is also a strong source of bugs, and should be considered carefully in each situation. We don’t know what the requirements for this code are, but in general we should recomend against universal use of argument mutation (and mutability in general).

Automation and process improvenent are key skills. The less time spent staying alive, the more time living

As a software engineer, skills I think I could contribute are systems design, debuging, writing software, and also trash pickup on the back af the truck. I’d be happy to help build software tools that help people actually enjoy life, and also I eon’t mind pitching in to my community.

The vast majority of wall time for most uses is io. You need someone on your team to care about big o, but for most teams, its not the problem

99% invisible just did an episode on skyscraper conversion. Its farily complicated.

I feel like, with this reply, you are willfully glossing over my point. The issue at hand is that open source software is short on the ux design expertise. My claim is that by centering the programing expertise, and in fact by not going out of the way to be inviting to the non-programming expertise, open source projects are self-perpetuating these cycles.

We can find ways to invite good designers in, or we can continue with the “sufficient” design ost projects currently have.

I’m happy if people have ather strategies for overcoming the current problem, but the current aproach is not doing it

Design of UX is a separate craft from programing, to follow your own analogy, you don’t need to know electrical engineering to design an airplane control panel

Sure, you can pr the design files, but thats not how the messaging comes across. Even the “how to contribute” for most projects, if they have one, is usually entirely technical. The majority of designers (not all) I have worked with have been very shy about technical work, so having no clear “non-technical” contribution pathway is a deterent.