Ones that might be of interest to you are Umka, tcl, and berry.
There's also a lot of others listed that range from someone's experimental side project to professional grade and well supported languages. Kinda fun to see different people's approaches to things, and no matter what your preferred programming style, there's probably a few in there that will mesh pretty well.
It currently clocks it at 12.5K but that includes stuff that could easily be stripped out. I suspect, even if I had it "finished" with everything I would ever want in it, it wouldn't be more than 15-20k. PGL saves a lot by not bothering with GLSL at all.
Glad you found it fun to play with, that's what it's for. Hoping to have a new release in the next week or so, and there have been some serious/breaking changes since the last so hopefully it goes well.
And on the topic of this thread, PGL is overkill for raylib's software rendering backend since they don't need arbitrary shader support, but I would still love to try making PGL a raylib backend someday because it would be cool and running the entire set of Raylib examples would be a great stress test. Plus then I could use raylib to make a game with PGL, win-win.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the drone shouldn't be flying anywhere near the crane. It's an active construction zone with a structure that moves and swings about in unpredictable ways with people and equipment moving about below. It shouldn't be delivering to the construction zone, and if it can't figure out how to stay out of the area, it doesn't belong in the sky.
There are some FAA requirements about cranes/temporary structures that would give pilots an appropriate NOTAM, but I don't know if all cranes require this. That said, I'd argue that if it isn't tall enough to require notifying the FAA, the drone is flying too low.
My impression many years ago was that it’s really not that bad. I got up and running writing simple programs immediately, and wouldn’t have tried to go outside its capabilities as a simple scripting language.
Tk has been embedded in python as the GUI toolkit since at least 2.x days. It's used for IDLE, the IDE shipped with Python, and is also used for the turtle module's graphics.
Because Tcl is a very compact language, and is easily integrated with special hardware, it is a popular choice for embedded development. You'll find Tcl hidden away on many devices, including many networking products from Cisco and others, and set-top boxes including Tivo. Embedding Tcl within other software projects is of course also hugely popular, and has become the dominant control language in some industries, such as in electronic design automation (EDA) and computer-aided design (CAD) applications.
It's mostly bad actors, and a smattering of optimists who believe that despite its current problems, AI will eventually and inevitably get better. I also wish the whole thing would calm down and come back to reality, but I don't think it's a bubble that will pop. It will continue to get artificially puffed up for a while because too many businesses and people have invested too much for them to just quit (sunk cost falacy) and there's a big enough market in a certain class of writer/developer/etc... for which the short term benefits will justify the continued existence of the AI products for a while. My prediction is that as the long term benefits for honest users peter out, the bubble won't pop, but deflate into a wrinkled 10 day old helium balloon. There will still be a big enough market driven by cons, ad tech and people trying to suck up as many ad dollars as possible, and other bad actors, that the tech will persist, and continue to infest the web/world for quite a while.
AI is the new crypto. Lots of promise and big ideas, lots of people with blind faith about what it will one day become, a lot of people gaming the system for quick gains at the expense of others. But it never actually becomes what it pretends/promises to be and is filled with people continuing the grift trying to make a buck off the next guy. AI just has better marketing and more corporate buy in than crypto. But neither are going anywhere.
But it's also way worse than cryptocurrencies, because all the big actors are pushing it relentlessly, with every marketing trick they know. They have to, because they invested insane amounts of money into snake oil and now they have to sell it in order to recover at least a fraction of their investments. And the amounts of energy wasted on this ultimately pointless performance are beyond staggering.
It depends on how they're marketed and what's the prevailing opinion. If we believe LLMs are true, genuine intelligence then yes, I'd say that's snake oil.
From a classists perspective, big capital cant drop the AI ball, because its their only shot at becoming independent from human labor, those pesky humans their wealth unfortnunately depends uppon and that could democratically seize it in an instant.
I bet there are billionare geniuses out there seeing a future island life far away from the contaminated continents, sustained by robots. So no matter how much harder AI progress gets, money will keep flowing.
For anyone that hasn't clicked the link, it shows that in just a few days, the observatory has already found over 2000 new asteroids. That is indeed very impressive.
Why do the brighter objects have the four way cross artifact? My (apparently incorrect) understanding was that those types of artifacts were a result of support structures holding reflecting mirrors on a telescope. But this camera just has a "standard" glass lense with nothing obstructing the light path to the sensor.
Those diffraction spikes are caused by the four-vane spider structure supporting the secondary mirror in the telescope's optical path, not by the camera lenses themselves.
You are not wholly wrong! There is both a supporting structure for the mirror, AND a glass lens in front of the sensor to further flatten the incoming light.
The interesting thing about the spikes in our images is that they stay fixed in image plane coordinates, not sky coordinates. So as the night sky moves (earth rotates) the spikes rotate relative to the sky leading to a star burst pattern over multiple exposures.
Ah, thanks. I had seen a bunch of hype about the camera itself (which is on its own very impressive) and assumed that was the complete device. Didn't realize it was part of a larger telescope.
If the universe does have a positive curvature as this predicts, would that mean that if we look out into space, we could see the same galaxies multiple times? Or even our own galaxy in the past? Or is the predicted curvature slight enough that anything we might see multiple times is already beyond the limits of visibility due to universe expansion?
Only if the circumference of the universe is small enough for light to have made the round trip since the universe began. But we think that the universe is much larger than that.
