ursakhiin

I'm not going to tell you you shouldn't do that, I think everybody else has done enough telling others what to do. I'll try to focus more on what you'd need to accomplish and why what you're asking hasn't been done.

Building an OS involves a lot of complex work using very low level calls. The easiest way to think about it, IMO, is that whatever language you use needs to be able to communicate directly with the hardware without any abstraction between the code and the hardware after it's compiled.

Basic Python, out of the box, requires multiple levels of abstraction to run.

(I'm simplifying here) You write code which is run through an interpreter. The interpreter is a compiled application that translates Python into code the operating system can understand. Then the operating system translates that to calls the hardware can understand.

In that process, the python code is translated to byte code, assembly, and machine code. The Python virtual machine handles memory management for you. It also handles some processing concepts for you.

You'd need to start by finding (or inventing) a solution that compiles Python to assembly without the need of an interpreter or OS in between you and the hardware. It's worth noting here that Python itself isn't even fully written in Python and is instead written largely in C because Python isn't a compiled language. You'd then need to extend Python with the ability to completely manage memory and processor threads without the VM. You'd need to do that because that's really the main purpose of an operating system.

Something we learn in programming is choosing the right tool for the job. Python isn't a great option for this type of project because the requirements just to get to where you can start are so high that it's not really considered worth while. Is it possible, yes, in theory. But without the python interpreter and VM, you'd have to ask if you're really developing Python or something else that just uses pythons syntax.

I think the headline is poorly worded. Apple paid $20 a person to not have to respect their privacy. They did that because our lack of privacy is worth much more than $20 to them.

This isn't 32000 in 1 wave, though. This is ~2500 a year over 13 years. Even the answers given at the beginning of the study could have changed wildly if the same people had been polled at the end. And even if not, 4 people per city is not representative of an entire city at any given moment of time.

What demographics in China did they poll each year? Did they poll people of different racial profiles? Did they poll uyhgurs? Were the candidates selected randomly or were the assigned by the government? If the latter, were they coached or paid? Any number of things could throw off that study.

That is by far the least satisfying study I've ever heard. 32000 people surveyed over 13 years. That's essentially 3.5 people per city in China. How are we to take that as a valid survey?

I'd certainly be interested in how those Harvard studies were accomplished what with much of China not being on the Internet. 95 percent certainly sounds high.

The Riftwar Cycle might fit. The magic system starts off with the users having a hard understanding of how magic works only to learn how soft and pliable it really is.

That said, this series is like 30+ books and is put it at half of them being really good and half being a grind while nearly all of them are dated in fantasy style.

I think that argument gets made by people who don't really know what producers do. It could be anything from managing the people on set to putting their name on it for cred. I'm this car, Baldwin was partially responsible for the story.

I think a lot of the confusion is that they were between takes.

He was drawing the weapon and rehearsing what he was going to do as they were discussing the next take and she was watching him through the camera. But the shot they were going for was most definitely him pointing the gun at the camera. The AD, I believe, was the one that handed him the gun without verifying it was cleared.

Baldwin is guilty of putting trust in the people around him doing their jobs correctly.

He was following the directions of the director and everybody involved, including the woman who died, agreed to do the scene. She wasn't just some random person on set, she was behind the camera because she was the director of photography.

If she didn't feel the scene was safe to film, she had the right to say no to using a realistic prop. This is an obviously sad incident. But Manny people were found or pleaded guilty to the events. Baldwin just isn't I've of them. Actors can't be expected to be experts and have to defer to experts on set all the time.

Plus, I think many people agree that the charges the prosecution brought are not charges he is guilty of. They pushed for terrorism so they could get first degree murder charges instead of a lesser charge.

He may have plead guilty if they had brought more appropriate charges.

Personally, I just don't think Baldwin is the one who deserves the charge. There were people on set responsible for ensuring his gun wasn't loaded. Those people failed in their job.

Ah. Ok. I mean, I'm of the opinion that he has every reason to believe he wasn't going to shoot her when he pulled the trigger.

But I just wasn't sure if you were misunderstanding the headline or if you were in the camp of punish everybody all the time.