For me it isn't about the cost as much as it is that I've tailored my possessions to be what I like. If I have it, it brings value, and I probably like the details enough that it's hard to replace without getting an exact replica.
3,384 karma · joined January 15, 2012
More about me: http://bradconte.com/about
My reading list: * tptacek * sdevlin * NateLawson * sweis * cryptbe * moxie * pbsd * cperciva * daeken * tytso * andrewbinstock (editor of drdobbs) * FiloSottile * matttproud
The more uniform a code base, the easier it is to breeze around and get stuff done. Naming things is already hard, so having rules around the annoying bits is nice.
If empty values are biting you, you need constructors.
There's definitely multiple ways to go about struct initialization, and Go had firmly chosen one approach. Best practice is to make the zero value of a field "useful", and to write a constructor function if you need it populated with any sort of conditional values.
Apple despises user freedom. Their whole thing is "use what we gave you and be happy for it". They would never tolerate letting users do something like run any app of their own choosing.
"It's decentralized! Code is law! I own my wallet!"
*proceeds to use third party wallet service that handles 40% of all wallets and then gets mad when they're hacked and there's no recovery process".
I genuinely believe the vast majority of crypto proponents are financially illiterate.
Literary storytelling is one thing, but we also function in daily life by taking in raw information and then distilling it down to a simpler narrative, aka a story. Effective communication accounts for this and creates a narrative for you to latch onto.
Creating a narrative, aka, story telling. It's ready to see the inspiration for the phrase, although yes the result is an overloaded term.
The danger is that people will think that AI is thinking and reasoning in a way that they are. But it isn't. It's a glorified template generator, at least for now.
Our brains and minds are fat more sophisticated and nuanced than the LLM models we've built in the last few years. It'd be crazy if they weren't.
The hard thing is knowing which ones are which. You can't see the benefit in advance.
A lot of things aren't worth paying for. A lot of software licenses go completely unused. A lot of conference attendees hang out with friends and learn nothing useful. A lot of modern hardware is spent editing CSS files.
The engineers exaggerate and say everything is useful because they don't want to lose any perks. The accountants exaggerate the other direction because their job is to protect cash flow and they have no clue what's useful.
Budget makers are often stuck in the middle: too far up to know what's practically useful but close enough that they know they need to make some investment.
Reluctant leaders are some of the best. They're there to get things done and rarely overstep their area of competence.
Imagine asking a writer to switch dialects. "It's the same thing, but just Old English." While some would find it fun, if you randomly swapped out dialects for each process I bet authors would get really tired of it really quickly, especially once they figure out which ones jobs with their natural thought process.
Also, OP mentioned fintech at the outset.
Your solution is for a problem that doesn't exist.
"Trump imposes an N% tax on goods from X" would be just as accurate but likely get a different reaction from the populace.
No it doesn't.
Bitcoin has no intrinsic tie to the financial markets.
The financial markets are all based on goods, services, and economic value. They build meta layers on top of it and sometimes those layers are bad, but nonetheless they are based on value.
Bitcoin is based on speculation. It offers no inherent value. No one needs or wants Bitcoin. People do want or need food, shelter, health, entertainment, education, human connection, etc, that the rest of the financial markets are based on.
I think a lot of crypto advocates don't understand that the stock market isn't made up. Yes there is volatility, yes it isn't perfect. But it isn't a pure casino.
Bitcoin has sometimes* correlated with the broader financial markets, but not because it was an indicator of the markets but because it was accidentally caught up in them as an inconsequential side thought. It got treated as an investment commodity by some big asset managers and thus followed the same trading patterns. When the asset managers thought outlook was poor, they sold a bit of everything, and everything would go down.
I like learning things starting from small, atomic this, then building up and learning higher layers of abstraction and functionality later. I tend to find hands on totals too "top down" in the sense that they start with all the told in place and then give you a cursory look into what's actually happening.
Personally I feel like most things in the world aren't really that complicated when you understand the building blocks. There are a few core ideas and then a bunch of layers on top to organize and utilize those ideas for different applications. So if I have an interest in something I want to learn from the ground up.
Vanguard is a service that manages your portfolio so you don't have to. Literally the definition of providing an economic service.
Owning the portfolio does come with risk, but it's not fixed odds, rather the odds track the literal economy. If you buy index funds, your ballot tracks the value of the country you invested in. When society does well, so do you. And guess what? Everyone, including the government, spends their life trying to generate value and wealth.
It isn't a casino. Likening the US economy to a casino is perhaps the most disingenuous nonsense I've heard from the church of crypto.
It's not only almost 100% speculation, it doesn't have much history track record.
Crypto bros need to understand that they aren't the first people to discover a speculation market, and just because they can dream of utility doesn't mean they test if the world wants to treat it as a reality. What they're doing is, from a financial perspective, boring and in many cases outdated.
But not all leaders are initiators. Sounds like his resume was more steering related.
The Tik Tok in-app notes for "shutting down" and "we're back" both referenced Trump by name. I doubt they would do that without his explicit consent.
Trump beamed his name and heroics directly into the eyeballs of 50m people before he even took office. That wouldn't have happened without the brief blip going dark.
Odds are good he said he'd pardon them (which is a whole different story) but ensured they'd go dark for a few hours, either by withholding his guarantee or by directly coordinating it with them.
This is Trump. It's always about him. If we haven't learned that we haven't learned anything.
The second isn't related to Go.
The third I can see as being a bit confusing, but isn't it something you try once and then remember forever?
Here's one: Creating a new variable via shorthand that shadows a variable in an outer scope - that can be confusing and an easy mistake to make.
But broadly, I would strongly advocate that it is simpler than most other languages, even if it has some quirks. In the same vein of "If I had more time, I'd write a shorter letter", sometimes it takes a bit of time to understand why something is simpler than the alternatives. No language has zero ramp-up. Go doesn't exist in a vacuum, you have to compare it's learning curve and complexity to other languages.
> Riot’s Valorant was one of the most accessible entries into tactical first person shooters.
I mean, Valorant probably has some anime design influence, but in the grand scheme of things it's waaaay on the minimal side and has no place in an article like this.
But also...
> So many things are wrong with this article but I’ll start with Haruhi Suzumiya being a ‘light novel’
Haruhi was a light novel?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Haruhi_Suzumiya_light_...
Despite the insane popularity of anime, it feels like only a limited subset actually fully capitalize on the market.
For example, take Violet Evergarden. It's a gorgeous show with a compelling emotional narrative, produced by Kyoto Animation, one of the most acclaimed studios. It's even on Netflix, available on demand for an international audience.
There is zero merch for it anywhere. The only thing you can buy is the Blu Rays. If you like the show, you can't give them your money if you want to.
This kind of thing is rampant in anime. A select few get merch and marketing out the wazoo, and a ton of other things are neglected, despite a clear interest from the fanbase.
- Arknights - Azur Lane - Kancolle
Just off the top of my head.
I share your mixed feelings. On the one hand, I like "anime" to refer to something very specific. I think the world is more confusing when terms evolve and redefine too much.
But on the other hand, the Gacha games clearly owe a good deal of their success to the anime elements they copy-pasted, even if the core game mechanics are anime-indifferent.
Over time, these lines will get blurred even more as the market maximizes where those elements can be incorporated. The art and story elements clearly have appeal, and they'll probably get incorporated into more and more into media that's not Japanese-produced TV shows.
And when those non-animes get adapted into true animes because they're obviously such a clean fit, it feels like the similarity needs to be acknowledged with some a broad umbrella word to cover everything. Which might as well be the word "anime"...?
The anime community has, for as long as I've been a part of it (13 years or so), decided that anime is "animation made in Japan". This heuristic has actually worked pretty well.
But the lines are increasingly blurred.
- Japanese produced shows are outsourcing some animation to China and Korea, and sometimes taking direct funding and story writing input from the USA.
- Non-Japan produced shows are taking notes on what works, drawing on it for inspiration, and in rare recent cases even outsourcing animation directly to Japan.
- There is a TON of money in gacha games, and the biggest "anime" titles some people may recognize are gacha games, butand the majority of those are run 100% by Chinese companies. Ironically, sometimes sending them over to Japan for the TV adaptation.
Just like food: Italy may have "invented" pizza, but New York pizza is now its own thing.
Western cartoons aimed at kids recycled the "power of being yourself" to death. Ask my tweens about the shows they've watched, and they'll pick apart how repetitive the story beats are between them.
The beats that anime is recycling may be different, but all of them get tiresome and feel pandering.
https://go.dev/play/p/-mEeg2Ud68V
This example cannot re-allocate the original map! If the map were truly passed by reference, it could be allocated in a local function. But it can't, only values within the map can be modified when a map is passed.
This is in contrast with pass by reference in, say, C++, in which case you can assign directly to and modify the reference. ex: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zos/2.4.0?topic=calls-pass-by-re...
References are nothing special, they are are simply pointers that hide the pointer and usually the receiving definition makes the decision about whether a pointer of a copy is passed.
In Go the type is just a wrapper around a pointer, making it function like a reference in all cases.
In go some types are simply defined as pointers, so they are technically always passed by value and there is never any magic about whether they are passed by value or referenced. It is always a value consisting of a reference.
A map is a pointer that is passed by value, along with slices and channels. 100% of the time.