Unless you can recreate the astonishing diversity of of a regular ecosystem in a box, I don't want this spacecraft.

Fruits and vegetable taste is already steadily decreasing and I have more and more trouble sourcing something decent despite having way more budget.

I also assume that, like everything with complex systems, we are missing the forest for the tree and we will discover tons of health issues related to this in the future.

Not only it's counter productive to engage adhd people, which makes me question their legitimity, but it's manipulative. It's textbook commitment increase to convert a lead into a paying customers. Doesn't feel they put the care in health care.

Same. And the form to "personalize" your experience is a dark pattern to lead you to commit to this. It's used by the porn and gambling industries to increase conversation and I wouldn't trust a healthcare company using it.

Did it for one year. Best year of my school life. But it's a shock to go back to the public system where dynamic are adversarial and artificially oriented around superficial metrics, both for tests and social life.

You probably need both to be well adapted because the public system teaches you to defend yourself, which us necessary IRL. Montessori teaches you collaboration and thinking outside of zero sum mindset.

The stdlib is linked to the version of the language, yes.

I wonder if there are languages (that have a stdlib) where that isn't the case

The c stdlib is more tightly coupled to the OS then any particular Compiler; and is not changed when you select a particular dialect (though the language standard dose specify what stdlib must support).

Some work allow you to walk while solving problems.

Giving people the ability to create more useless unsupported DSL in a world where people think YAML dialects in the CI was a good idea will damage Python in the long run.

And I say that while I wished I could use macro several times in Python because the syntax was lacking.

I'm likened to agree. As much fun as syntactic macros in python would be, and despite all the doors it would open, it would really kick up the potential complexity. Heck, folks were complaining about pattern matching and the walrus operator.

I mean maybe the council will go with it, but I'm bearish.

I do really like the idea of jit macros and zero-overhead decorators though.

I feel the same way. I'd love to use macros to implement dataclasses. But it does open the door for unreadable code.

I'm torn on the issue: I don't want to be restricted from improving dataclasses in what would be fairly obvious ways, but I'm sure the feature would be abused. But maybe this falls under the "we're all consenting adults" guideline.

Zero overhead exceptions are on the way so it would be natural for decorators to be next, even if it's likely way harder to implement given that decorators can basically do anything side effecty.

I don't think you're likely to see zero overhead decorators any more than "zero overhead software" in general.

Take dataclasses: it adds a bunch of synthesized methods to a class, and needs to use "exec" to create them. How could that be zero overhead?

To help with this, I've proposed moving knowledge of dataclasses into the Python compiler, but even I don't think it's a great idea. For example, it would leave attrs in a disadvantaged position, and I don't want to do that.

Another option would be to move dataclasses before the code generator. Syntactic macros are one way to do that. Then there really would be zero overhead when loading the cached .pyc files. That's their appeal to me. Of course there are lots of other things that could be done with syntactic macros, which is both good and bad.

Being in the flow is not being on automatic.

It's the absolute opposite, you are totally conscious about what you are doing, and clear headed about the decisions you make.

It does feel effortless, but not in the sense that you are not doing the thing consciously, rather in the sense that the thing seems so obvious and easy as you perform in perfect fluidity.

And then on it because you most likely part of a project that will never have any requirement that needs anything else.

To quote taleb (https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1533067876671885312):

"...while I've seen gluts not followed by squeezes, I've never seen a squeeze not followed by a glut."

Probably was even true for whale oil when people moved to kerosene out of price and availability. It was because nobody was buying, but still a glut.