Don't worry, humans are different. Greed will destroy them way before they make enough progress. :D

If they had a sense of humor, they'd go with "HAL". :D

Cybersecurity Awareness, Chapter one: Don't put your invaluable business data into the cloud... Wait -- :D

I think it's a little unfair to claim Vista was worse than ME. The whole article is more polemic than the result of deep technical understanding. He might be right that UAC was annoying in Vista, but what's annoying compared to a laughable user protection like in DOS-based Windows (yes, Windows ME)? Sure, its system requirements were high, but most of the driver and performance issues were gone with Service Pack 1 and 2. And Windows 8? It was a mistake from the UI perspective, but underneath it was really stable and had a relatively low memory footprint (sometimes even better than Windows 7). In this regards, it was better than some Windows 10 release of today that is half-baked and overloaded with a ton of bullshit-features and semi-annual upgrades no one asked for. So - sorry. Windows ME is really the worst. Just because it's DOS-based makes it worse than any of the worst NT-releases :D

Now train an AI with the most popular songs ever released (maybe a list of 10,000 or so) to find all the melodies with a similar pattern - voila, you got a hit writing machine. :D

C# and HTML, or, the Beauty and the Beast. :D

Kent Sharkey wrote:

OK, who used an int16 variable to hold the lifespan?

A Millenial who thinks Y2K refers to a meme webspace.

I don't think they will succeed in it. People who want to block unwanted ads will find other ways to do so, like PiHole etc. Or finally see the value in alternative browsers like Firefox again, and that a monopoly in this area can never be healthy to the web.

Well, it doesn't bring new functionality but it makes some things easier to write and lets you express something that wasn't possbile before but felt it should have been there from day one. Like, for example, I always wondered why I cannot use the switch statement for type matching. Now I can, and it's a good thing. And there is some new functionality, like default interface implementations. The thing is: Introducing new features will likely require a change to the underlying runtime itself, and I like that C# was pretty conservative about that in the past until today. But, agreed, some of the syntactic sugar is already overloading the language, but at least you are not forced to use it. C++ is a really ugly language, now that C# is almost 20 years old and still readable and quite clean speaks for their designers.

#realJSOP wrote:

They're trying to make c# typeless, like other bastard languages, such as VB, and javascript... I don't like it at all.

I've got mixed feelings about this. Both the strong-typed and typeless concepts have their pros and cons. It's more frustrating that you cannot combine the best of both worlds into a single approach.

Built from the ground up? Nothing like that is build from the ground up these days; it's more illusion than reality. Like in, roll the dice and you get a new result, but the dice are still the same.

Gosh, YouTube was really bad looking in 2009. On the other hand, now that its design is not so ugly anymore, it's overload with JavaScript-fanciness.

I miss Roslyn on that list.

"Backed by the US-Dollar", which is, wait a minute... backed by nothing! Well, nothing but the US military, that is. ;P

Experiments on mice that have been exposed to artificial radiation corresponding to cosmic rays over months showed that after only half a year, every single one of them suffered from Alzheimer's disease and starved. So: In your face, Elon Musk! :-D You better get your lead suit ready.

TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:

Programmers! Programmers! Programmers! Programmers! Programmers! Programmers!

Wait, wasn't it "Developers! Developers! Developers!"? Now Satya chimes in: "Cloud! Cloud! Cloud!" ... Hope it doesn't rain, I'd say. :D

Yay! Airspace issues are back because we all liked them so much ten years ago. :D Support for Windows 7 might be one reason why developers still use WinForms/WPF today, but the article is missing the fact that the UWP framework is inferior to what WPF offers. Well, I guess that's just the fate of remakes: The new movie can hardly compare to the original.

I wonder why they didn't just modernize WPF. It's a mature and proven framework for LOB applications that unfortunately is stuck in 2010 from a technology perspective. Instead, they decided to reinvent the wheel. Literally, because UWP just uses the same old concepts and has the same old features like WPF or Silverlight, but often in a rather crippled implementation. For example, you cannot have read-only dependency properties or use property coercion, and it's missing essential controls. On the other hand, new concepts in UWP, like themed resources or x:Bind, and modern controls, are missing from WPF. It's a mess of two worlds.

What the article doesn't mention: We might not know the names of the people who have written it, but what we do know is the obvious purpose of this piece of software, and so it's pretty easy to make an educated guess about its origin: Since it was targeting centrifuges for purifying uranium in Iran, it has to be some military or intelligence (or both) organization within the USA. I mean, their interests are quite clear if you look at their geopolitical and geostratgic decisions (or escalations) in the past about twenty years. And they surely have the kind of unlimited resources (in money etc.) to plan and develop such a thing. So changes are pretty high that the name of the author is either NSA or CIA.

The Empire Office-Chair-Lobby Strikes Back :-D Return of the swivel-chair battles!