So I solves a lot of pain points and the only problem you are left with is dealing with JavaScript? It's quite neat, but why not simply use a better language and an engine? E.g. Unity3d, MonoGame, Godot?
If you're targeting the web, then you're compiling to Javascript anyways, so the indirection + engine complexity isn't always worth it. Unity tends to pay off as you take on more platform targets and/or implementation complexity (like graphics), for example.
It's kinda like using https://github.com/schteppe/p2.js for physics instead of Box2D: if p2 gets the job done, then you get the advantage of working with a much simpler code base than Box2D which is just about impenetrable as an emscripten port.
Nah I think this is just a personality thing. Coworkers often try to get my hyped up about finishing some release and I've learned that it's just not how I respond. My "celebration" is just to be relieved, go home and tell my wife about it, and start thinking about the next thing.
Taking a moment to enjoy a success, or just that a major heap of work is over, is critical.
The industry has a major problem with burnout. If we don't slow down, and take a break, then eventually, burnout becomes inevitable. The mind gets overworked.
Some people celebrate to recharge. Others stop using a keyboard, and find something else to do.
I don't recharge around others, I find it exhausting. But after a major project ends, I do usually find myself buying the new hit PC game, or taking a hike into the mountains.
Your coworkers celebrate, so that they can feel the weight of the release lift off easier.
Something else might already be playing that role with you - and some releases will be easy for you, and several months of hellish stress for someone else.
I think you missed my point (I probably didn't make it well): my point was just that "celebration" in the typical sense, is not how I take a moment to enjoy a success.
In this case it's a UK private hospital not funded by the NHS so the comparison is valid. The article compares one of the most expensive private hospital of the UK to the cost of an average US hospital. Also the US spends more in public taxes for healthcare than the UK so I don't see your point.
Should highlight that many private hospitals are attached or "next door" to NHS hospitals. With surgical "complications" (post-infection, mid-op crash, etc), many of these private hospitals will discharge their patients to the NHS hospital for care.
How? Because they can. It keeps costs down and the NHS can't [0] refuse to treat somebody, even if they're coming from a private surgical ward.
I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but this is one reason why private elective care is so cheap in the UK. The other being that they have to compete with £0.
It's actually a UK NHS hospital which operates a private maternity wing on the side. The email address in the brochure is even @nhs.net. They're probably relying on staff and resources from the NHS side to handle more difficult births too.
Private companies who provide services to the NHS also get @nhs.net email addresses. It's a secure email system so that patient and other confidential data can be exchanged between providers without it going out onto random internet mail servers.
An @nhs.net email doesn't mean "this person/organisation is a part of the NHS", it means they provide services to the NHS and need to deal with patient data.
As it says on the hospital's website, "difficult" births will be free to those eligible (British, EU etc) but will be charged to others (presumably people like the wealthy Arab people in the brochure).
> This is not true, the US spends as much government money per capita on health care as the UK
Per capita spending seems like a misleading basis for comparison to me. US government healthcare schemes cover about 25% of the population, whereas in the UK the NHS covers essentially 100% of the population.
It's OK for taxes to pay for anything, you just have to remember that just because you don't swipe your credit card or get a bill it doesn't mean that something is "free".
This is just disingenuous. And perhaps the wrong way to think about it.
Sure, it's not 'free'. But when you pay taxes, everyone doesn't pay equal amounts. Those who are able to earn more money, pay more taxes. Those who can't pay less. But no one is left to fend for themselves. Even the poor can get treatment. We're also not paying anything like the insane prices you pay in America.
I would like to differ and make the claim that most of it actually is indeed "free", since we are all living very comfortably off a huge inheritance and network effects:
It would be nice to see some STEM-affirmative universities without any x-studies leaching. Professional complainer is a viable career path these days and it starts at uni.
Huh? I might have misinterpreted your point, but you might have it backward. Most STEM courses are subsidised by "studies" and humanities. It can cost multiples more to teach a biology student than an English one, and that cost is offset by it being less than fees to teach the latter and more than fees to teach the former.
A university would have a hard time having a competitive science department without leaching cash from the business studies faculty.
Haidt is a psychologist whose research and advocacy has in recent years moved towards political bias in universities, in particular he talks a lot about student and faculty driven morality-based censorship.
He started the "Heterodox Academy" which argues for and promotes ideological diversity (i.e. both left and right) in universities.
Some guy derailed the conversation for no reason. Jonathan Haidt is far from right wing propaganda (though he is heavily focused on morality and religion like many D's).
Below is a quick dirty quote from Wikipedia.
In chapter 8 of The Righteous Mind, Haidt describes how he began to study political psychology in order to help the Democratic Party win more elections. But in chapter 12 of The Righteous Mind Haidt argues that each of the major political groups – conservatives, progressives, and libertarians—have valuable insights and that truth and good policy emerge from the contest of ideas. Since 2012 Haidt has referred to himself as a political centrist
Ugh, that's dystopian. There's bullshit on both sides of the university (stem and humanities). They're symbiotic and they need each other and the world desperately needs more people skilled in both.
Stephen Hawking doesn't become Stephen Hawking without an awareness and understanding of the humanities.
Not to mention people like Frege, Russel, Gödel, Wittgenstein, Chomsky, and so on and the impact they had on the foundation of mathematics, theory of language and theoretical CS.
