Claiming that the number of job postings mentioning Jupyter has decreased, so Jupyter is no longer popular is not something a company in the data space should do. It is just embarrassing.
And that graph they show has an offset y axis (hides the scale from 0 to exaggerate the "downward trend") _and_ has a non-uniform x axis. Each tick mark represents a different scale of time (1yr, 3 mos, 1 mo)
At the time when job openings are declining across the board, it's easy to lie with statistics.
It's like publications saying "research discipline X is gaining traction in recent years" based on search matches in PubMed, but not normalizing for the total number of articles submitted increasing.
> Here’s a quick test. Try to find the function definition here
This is only an issue for websites and they generally have short code snippets anyway. I’ve been using the same theme in my editor for the last 10 years so it is much more useful there.
It gets close to dancing around my point, but the article actually doesn't mention old age at all.
The article insinuates that we don't care about heart disease, because heart disease is boring and common.
But death is a lot more complicated of an issue to society than this. Society expects that a young healthy person in the prime of their life is going to be around for their family and their friends. Other people are probably counting on them to still exist tomorrow. By contrast when an elderly person has been suffering on their deathbed with dementia for 10 years, and dies of heart disease, it's so much different situation for society, that person may not have many friends or family left, and they may not be able to interact with them, even if they are alive for another year. And the friends and family they have left may have been going through the grieving process for years already.
Society does not see all deaths as equal things no matter the circumstance. And so it's silly for this article to pretend that the only thing different between any of these deaths is the cause listed on the death certificate.
That section implies that news sources report on this because otherwise customers wouldn't be entertained enough to keep paying. The piece doesn't really engage with the argument you're responding to.
That would be the opposite of consistency; i is the front vowel and ı is the back one.
Note that the vowel /i/ cannot umlaut, because it's already a front vowel. The ï you cite comes from French, where the two dots represent diaeresis rather than umlaut. When umlaut is a feature of your language, combining the notation like that isn't likely to be a good idea.
Turkish i/İ sounds pretty similar to most of the European languages. Italian, French and German pronounce it pretty similar. Also removing umlauts from the other two vowels ö and ü to write o and u has the same effect as removing the dot from i. It is just consistent.
No, what I mean is, o and u get an umlaut (two dots) to become ö and ü, but i doesn't get an umlaut, it's just a single dot from ı to i. Why not make it i and ï? That would be more consistent, in my opinion.
I guess the aim was to reuse as much of the standard Latin alphabet as possible.
A better solution would have been to leave i/I as they are (similar to j/J), and introduce a new lowercase/uppercase letter pair for "ı", such as Iota (ɩ/Ɩ).
This was shortly after the Turkish War of Independence. Illiteracy was quite high (estimated at over 85%) and the country was still being rebuilt. My guess is they did their best to represent all the sounds while creating a one to one mapping between sounds and letters but also not deviating too much from familiar forms. There were probably conflicting goals so inconsistencies were bound to happen.
