I thought there was a prosecutor who pursued this beyond all reasonable bounds, making Aaron’s life a living hell and driving him to suicide?

Fair enough. I’ll fix that.

It was hardly ever used in WiFi. Two spread spectrum schemes were available in the original WiFi spec, FHSS and DSSS. DSSS was always preferred over FHSS and in practice FHSS was hardly used and eventually obsoleted a decade ago due to lack of use. It was never “the basis” of WiFi as claimed in the meme - that’s simply incorrect.

Don’t get me wrong. FHSS is cool and it’s a great achievement. It just has little bearing on WiFi and absolutely no relationship to GPS.

Better examples of FHSS would be Bluetooth (which you already mentioned), cordless phones, R/C toys and some military communications.

Yes, it’s been obsoleted in wifi since 2014. DSSS was always the preferred option and FHSS was never used much in WiFi.

This is mostly wrong: while she did invent what would later be called Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it isn’t used in modern WiFi or in GPS. It is used in Bluetooth though.

I should point out that techniques like FHSS are only a part of what makes up a radio communication method. You can’t say it was “the basis of Bluetooth” just because FHSS is one of the many technologies used in Bluetooth. She certainly contributed though.

Honestly that sounds like the kind of conversation I’d be into.

deleted by creator

Yes, that’s the difference between “safer” and “actually safe”.

Asklemmy@lemmy.ml

It’s also a fallacy that rust code is memory safe. I audited a couple of large rust projects and found that they both had tens of unsafe constructs. I presume other projects are similar.

You can’t use “unsafe” and then claim that your program’s memory safe. It may be “somewhat safe-ish” but claiming that your code is safe because you carefully reviewed your unsafe sections leaves you on the same shaky ground as c++, where they also claim that they carefully review their code.

deleted by creator

It’s already been addressed in Linux - not sure about other OSes. They doubled the size of time data so now you can keep using it until after the heat death of the universe. If you’re around then.

That might be true of VHDL / Verilog programmers I guess.

Python’s become very widely used in industry - it’s definitely a plus when looking for jobs these days. TIOBE now says it’s the most popular language in the world.

Yeah but think of all the bacteria it’s putting out of work.

I think the timeline’s a bit off here.

OP describes how primitive computing was in the 80s and 90s, and speaks of a number of developments which appeared “leading up to the year 2000”. Let me give examples of all of these developments which were actually from the 1970s or earlier:

• The VAX-11/780 was introduced in 1977, pretty much introduced the concept of a modern MMU and memory model - although there were plenty of precursors. They were very popular and widespread.
• Lisp’s been around since 1958. It (and other languages) used memory managed runtimes similar in concept to today’s ones.
• IBM’s VM/370 OS introduced virtual machines on IBM mainframes in 1972. They were an integral part of the OS and CPU architecture, probably more so than current VMs which are kind of tacked on as an afterthought.
• Modular programming languages were a big topic in this era. One that comes to mind is Modula-2 which was first introduced in 1977, but much programming language development at the time was focused on modularity and code reuse.
• And JITs date back to 1960.

My point is that I think these advancements were made a lot earlier than OP’s saying. Sure, some of them took a while to spread but we pretty much started the 80s with all of this already in place.

Don’t you mean:

class AgreementManagerClass {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println("I agree."); 
    }
}

Go’s less verbose than Java in my experience. And I’ve written quite a lot of both. But YMMV.

And yet C with its not at all comprehensive standard library did well. I’m a bit puzzled about these results.

There’s no way that Go is more verbose than Java. I’ve written both in decent quantities and Java was always way more verbose than Go for me. I suspect it’s the nature of code.golf giving these results more than the languages themselves.