You can infer direction from observable actions, and Microsoft is visibly going for dev mindshare with e.g. Typescript and VS Code. They recognise that they lost the battle for the dev desktop and the server OS, hence the pivot to xplat.
You can code in strictly vim or JetBrains with no friction, and run on mono with no friction in the happy case. It is possible for the SDK to be the only Microsoft product in your stack.
I don't see a way for Microsoft to return to funnelling users to their own ecosystem via dev-ex, and they seem to recognise that.
Potentially viewable as better than OpenJDK and Oracle (and OracleJDK) from what I've seen. A lot of .NET governance moved to the Dotnet Foundation which is built along the lines of things like the Linux Foundation. Microsoft is the major contributor to .NET and a major sponsor of the Dotnet Foundation, but most of their contributions are still flow through the Foundation legal/governance structure and subject to the same governance as anyone else today. .NET is almost entirely planned and developed openly on GitHub including things like meeting minutes for all in person meetings.
Reality does not have amount of details, it is infinite in all directions. Its only that we perceived certain amount of details, some more some less. One can spend their whole life mastering a single aspect and there always will be room to improve.
I can't prove it in scientific ways, the thing is at some point scientists defined an atom as something indivisible, today we know they study sub atomic particles, and even finer things, waves or strings or whatever. In the same way 100 years from now our science will look primitive, physics will be few levels deeper, but there always be the next thing. Its like a pattern of nature.
I'm saying this from a perspective of practicing powerful spiritual practices and having certain experiences. They actually make one experience infinitive nature of consciousness, and somehow realize this is the way everything is made.
Yeah that's why all models are wrong and everything ultimtately comes down to intution like supreme court's I know it when I see it.
It's just that intuition doesn't scale and a lot of common cases can be handled with models, rules, definitions etc. People continue to be confused that just adding more rules eventually solves reality but it never has anywhere for anything so continuing to believe it will is wild
Even human perception is able to peek into the infinite nature of things, not the intellect though, the intellect can only work with limited and defined "things".
It's unknowable through current means of science. There are ways to experience that, I did some of them so I'm talking from my experience. And no, I can not prove it, if it was provable like that it would be already done.
Its the plague of western people thinking they have the moral high ground over other cultures and nations. In the place where I grew up this kind of scene would be considered normal. But you must be the one who dictates what is right and what is wrong, don't you?
Please do tell me which culture finds it acceptable to throw rocks at people because they happen to like the same woman.
Even ignoring the unnecessary language, sexist content, gender stereotyping, and so on and so forth, just the warrantless violent act in that story is enough for people to object to. And enough people have objected that there isn’t any good reason for the author to keep that animation included. Particularly when it doesn’t actually demonstrate this library in a way that literally any of demo couldn’t. So why even defend it?
> moral high ground over other cultures and nations.
I don't think I have that, really. But I have the high ground over people who objectify groups of other people, and if that is really central to your culture, then I am not accepting of it. Make of that what you will; you do not seem particularly open to criticism either.
>you do not seem particularly open to criticism either.
Right, and how would you know that? Just make sure you make your opponent look bad and you win the argument - this worked in school, not sure why try to do it here.
You can't know whether you have the moral high ground. That's always an assumption, and I am not making any assumptions about being morally superior to other nations or cultures. No more, no less.
> What is the objectification here exactly?
I have answered that extensively in another comment [0]; in short the scene depicted treats women as a prize for the stronger man. This seems pretty obvious to most people commenting on this thread.
> Right, and how would you know that?
Because you started off accusing me of thinking I have the moral high ground over other cultures and nations, and dictating what is right and what is wrong - without knowing anything about me either, on the basis of me pointing out how this animation is sexist.
You didn't pause to consider whether that might have some merit, but instead immediately went to a personal attack. It sure seemed to trigger a reaction in you, and it wasn't reflection.
I'm not defending it, I'm saying "cringy sexist bullshit" is just a modern liberal western take. It could have been something like "people might see it problematic", and I agree with that.
Nice one, what I noticed is that out of 4 options 1 wrong is just something looking similar in letters, and 2 options are opposite meaning of each other - so actually the choice is 1 out of 2, not 4.
Also many highest difficulty words are actually combinations of multiple smaller words which makes it easier to guess, I got more right in expert/grandmaster than in advanced.
Does it really do that much difference? I mean in the end robots process MCP output the same way they would process API docs.
reply