I think this dynamics shows up with masto as well. When the response on the other service does not tag the community, it doesn’t arrive here.

Just trying not so confuse realistic testing with self-deception :) Not convinced testing with synthetic data can pretend to be similar to a production environment.

It is not realistic to replicate a production setup in development when you’re working with sensitive user data. I’ve worked in different contexts (law enforcement, healthcare, financial services) where we’ve had complicated setups (in one instance including a thing called pre-staging environment), but never would a sizeable team of developers have access to user data, and thus to a realistic setup in terms of size, let alone of quality of data.

I’m sorry, but doesn’t sound very convincing. The strongest (reiterated) argument is “venv is standard”, but so is docker.

Thanks. I didn’t know this and it is very useful information.

Even if so, your unreasonably pessimistic assumption is that this would be an exclusive source of revenue. Once content is created, cross-posting is free.

Thanks for doing the maths. Actually, it does show that there’s a small, but unexploited market here. $2-3K a month is a very good income for the most of the world. And this doesn’t have to be the only revenue stream.

Could you elaborate, please. I’m genuinely interested

Looks exciting, and the basic example in the user guide seems more intuitive than pandas. Looking forward to see how it’s going to integrate with bokeh and plotnine, though.

I guess you misunderstood my providing illustrative examples in parentheses. Replace or remove the examples, the argument is still valid.

In another subthread they’ve pointed out that processing food also changes its protein density, most obviously by water transfer.

This is not a problem with the nutrition of foods, it is the metric that is poorly designed. One more argument against the chart

Your seem to insist to twist this towards vegan wars, but this is you. It’s not the graphics, it’s not me.

Upfront analysis and design is very close to independent from the technology, particularly at the I/O level

What’s wrong with reducing density through absorption (of water)?

To me it seems that your interpretation completely disregards the Y-axis. On the other hand, I wouldn’t think the colour coding does a good job in separating along the carnivorous-vegetarian-vegan scale.

Q: what do we do? A: profile and decompose. Should not be that distant as a thought

So much wrong about this chart. It is factually correct, but it answers the wrong question.

This chart makes it way too easy to optimise for cheap protein, which is misleading. It is not this what it takes to have a healthy organism. It takes a varied diet, with balanced quantities of liquids (see milk), vitamins (see sprouts), fatty acids (see salmon), minerals (see shrimps, eggs, walnuts), actually carbs (potatoes, rice, spaghetti), and much more…

Definitely my preference. However, for someone just starting (and not used to pressing TAB or calling help() ), an empty prompt might be intimidating.

That’s why I typically suggest interactive tutorials, e.g. any of these two: https://www.learnpython.org/en/Hello%2C_World! https://futurecoder.io/course/#IntroducingTheShell

If you do that, nothing will actually be checked. You need to explicitly run pyright in CI.

Are you suggesting that you prefer to do the type validation upon execution? I’d like to have the checks done beforehand, be it in the IDE during coding or in CI. This way the feedback loop is shorter.

Then, backwards compatibility is a big thing in python, unlike node. So when typehints were introduced in 3.5 with PEP 484, they had to be optional.

At least Typescript defines the semantics of its type hints. Python only defines the syntax! You can have multiple type checkers that conflict with each other!

It is a bit more complicated than that. Here’s a quote the above-mentioned PEP (3.5 was back in 2015, we’re at 3.12 now and typehints have evolved):

Note that this PEP still explicitly does NOT prevent other uses of annotations, nor does it require (or forbid) any particular processing of annotations, even when they conform to this specification. It simply enables better coordination, as PEP 333 did for web frameworks.

https://peps.python.org/pep-0484/

Have you looked at this one? https://pypi.org/project/onboot/