That is one thing i like about the Julia package ecosystem. The general Registry (where package metadata is stored and where you go to register a new package), recommends using explicit names over short acronyms. For example, DifferentialEquations.jl is a package that does differential equations in julia (recognizable via the .jl suffix). What does Garlic.jl do? Exactly, garlic (the vegetable) modelling.
Yes, but it's fairly light-touch moderation. Newly registered first packages go through some automatic checks, and if they pass all those checks they are put on a 3-day waiting period for community to give feedback or raise objections to the package, and then at the end of the 3-day period, if nobody blocks it, the package is registered.
One of the automatic checks is a name similarity check, and if the name is too similar to an existing name, then the package is blocked from being auto-merged. At that point, someone will look at it, and there'll be a discussion on whether or not the name is okay. A lot of the time, the response is just "this is a false positive" and the package is greenlit. Other times, there's a discussion on whether or not the name is acceptable, and some alternative suggestions are given.
_______________
There was a little episode recently where someone tried to register a package with the same name as an existing package, but with two letters tacked onto the end of the name. Their package was just a fork of an existing package, but with a minor patch applied becuase they were frustrated that maintainers of the existing package weren't responding to pull requests.
The system automatically flagged the name, and the person was initially upset that they couldn't just register their fork, but within a couple hours we tracked down a maintainer to fix the existing package, and then we added this person as a maintainer to the original package so that they could review and accept pull requests to the package themselves. I think this ended up being a better solution for everyone involved.
Google never rebranded. It's still Google. They just had all these unrelated moonshots like Verily and Waymo that didn't make sense to keep pretending were a part of Google.
Even better, why don’t we just get rid of the unwieldy acronyms altogether and simply refer to them as “major tech companies”? It’s clearer and avoids the constant reshuffling every time the market shifts.
a 3-meter high wall of water is not really good either, due to kinetic energies, if no significant tsunami coastal protections, that water flow can reach far inland
i don't use Erlang (mainly Julia), but this change makes a lot of sense. in Julia, there is the == operator (value equality) and the === operator (value egality). 0.0 == -0.0,because they have the same "value". but they aren't identical (the bits are different), so !(0.0 === -0.0).
tianqi sold all his shares of SQM (one of Chile lithium companies, around 23%) after the announcement.
The situation of the lithium in Chile is very particular. in the Pinochet dictatorship, litium was nationalized, because it was a key ingredient of atomic bombs (and not much else at that time), and USA didn't want other countries to access the resource, so all current mines are in a lease contract (Albemarle until 2043, SQM until 2030). the new proposition opens new zones for exploitation, in exchange of the public-private parnership
"Fun" fact about that, it was nationalized because it is a material for use in atomic bombs, in the 70 and 80 there wasn't another use for large scale lithium mining, except for that
reply