Not that I disagree with Alexander here, but sometimes it feels like I'm taking crazy pills - this kind of integrated model has been WHO standard for over twenty years.
As he noted, many people claim to use an integrated model. It's a motte and bailey.
>I’ve never heard anyone willing to defend the actual Social Model the way it’s taught in every course, written on every website, and defined by every government agency. Everyone says they mean the Interactionist Model. Yet somehow, the official descriptions still say that disability is only social and not related to disease, and that you may only treat it with accommodations and not with medical care.
> the topic is taught in a way that only occasionally nods to such a compromise; more often the Medical Model is condemned as outdated and bigoted, and the Social Model introduced as the new, acceptable version that people should use
He quotes many sources that take the social model literally even in the 2020s
Yeah...I actually didn't want to get all, well, "geographical", but I can't help wonder if that's a US thing? At least here in Austria, the biopsychosocial model has been standard in teaching for a long time, and while it will still take some time for the generational shift in practice to conclude, monofactorial models have generally been accepted as being obsolete.
And regarding the BPS model: I stand corrected about my agreement - the point he makes about it I very much disagree with:
>This isn’t an exact match for a model of disability; the Biopsychosocial Model is most often used to explain the causes of illness, not how it impairs people. Still, I think there is a close enough analogy that it could be easily extended to disability.
Considering that all of Scott's quoted sources are American, I wouldn't be surprised if your country doesn't have the same issue. I assure you that a lot of American institutions take the Social Model of Disability literally while claiming to use a multifactorial model.
> Have a look through some of the weirdness in the implementations it's wild (and sometimes educational). The .NET team especially has done stuff specifically to get faster on those benchmarks.
Could you give me a pointer or two?
I wondered about that myself, especially considering the massive improvement from "old" .NET to the core/kestrel based solutions - but a quick browsing a while ago mostly left me astonished how...well, for lack of a better word, banal most of the code was.
Agreed though, lack of all kinds of layers like auth, orm etc. are sadly a drawback of these kinds of benchmarks, if understandable - it would make comparability even trickier and has the danger of the comparison matrix of systems/frameworks/libraries exploding in size. But yeah, would be nice datapoints to have. :)
They don't even use Razor Pages but a custom RazorSlices package to do the templating [1]. Yes, that is much faster because it removes MVC and a ton of infrastructure but it's also kind of gross. Also the use of stuff like UnsafePreferInlineScheduling has some downsides (running application code on the IO thread) and honestly I'd never use in production.
The custom BufferWriter stuff is pretty neat though, although also not really something most people will reach for. And there is more, like the caching of StringBuilders etc.
But it also doesn't use the actual HTTP server to build headers, but they just dump a string into the socket [2], feels a bit unrealistic to me. In general the BenchmarkApplication class [3] is full of non-standard stuff that you'd normally let the framework handle.
Thanks a lot for the input, that's quite enlightening - seems like I have been browsing everything but the "Platform" target...
Puh, yeah, I see what you mean, much the stuff in [2] and [3] is rather...bespoke, especially compared to the minimal and mvc targets. Not really what I'd consider "realistic" as per the benchmark's definition.
But TBH, I wouldn't consider [1] gross, on the contrary - simple, fast, lightweight Razor templating without other MVC (or other external) dependencies isn't that unusual a use case and something I've often thought ASP.NET Core was missing (even Razor Pages feel like overkill if you just want to quickly generate some dynamic HTML).
That's where a desk mount monitor arm comes in. Even a high-end model capable to hold those 49" 32:9 monsters will likely be significantly cheaper than a custom desk.
More like do a thing and do it once. If every WM and DE needs to do it, you have some that don't, or you have issues that are handled correctly by some DEs and not others, etc.
Snark aside, it's still orthogonal to my question. I wasn't questioning whether it should be done centralized, but why it's supposed to be part of the display server protocol/compositor.
Because the "display" server is also responsible for window management and input. Does it have to be this way? Perhaps not - but seperating window management and input is also not trivial.
Note that more complex input methods do somewhat bypass the display server and communicate via dbus instead.
Did you miss the do it well part? Nearly every unix tool does more than one thing, the alternative would be a usability nightmare.
* grep, which primarily does pattern matching has dozens of file traversal related flags that could be handled by calling it from find
* find, a tool supposed to find files for some reason has dozens of flags related to executing applications which could probably be done by using xargs
* did you know that xargs can do pattern matching and replacement on its input string? there are probably dozens of unix tools that are specialized for that
What does that even mean in this context?
The amount of cases to be processed doesn't change regardless of the order, and the amount of time and attention directed toward each shouldn't either, otherwise you have a much bigger issue.
But that's not how it's currently done (at least I don't think and nobody in the comments or article is suggesting so), and escalation in severity doesn't have anything to do with officers or with how efficient you are with officer time.
But if the order stated by OP is accurate, they're not ordered by the officer who needs to show up, they're ordered by severity. Severity might correlate by officer, but probably won't.
"playing different roles" is kind of nebulous, though - and especially historically, it doesn't really mesh with what has been considered an RPG.
Depending on your strictness of definition, quite a bit more than "a few oddities" among the RPG classics would not fit this definition, on the other end it would encompass a ton of non-linear P&C/VN/Interactive fiction in general.
I know that the moniker has it's issues when taking it literally, but doing so too strictly makes the term almost meaningless when discussing genres. (..."even more meaningless", some may argue. ;) )
