6,885 karma · joined March 26, 2017
It's why I view contemporary libertarians as a farce. They were all up in arms, screaming at about having to wear a mask to keep others alive, but here we have people building an administrative state placing itself itself to be fully above the law able to impose any rule or action desired without consequence -- and not peep.
Maybe I'm just not understanding the distinction (and am open to being corrected) but the level of hypocrisy is just incredible to me.
No matter how many times that's been shown to be wrong, many people still believe it.
The best part is they argue in support of it with the tautology of "if it's a problem then a business will fix it. And then someone points out all the problems that business has not fixed, their response is 'see well it must not be a problem'". Completely ignoring all of the structural reasons why it doesn't get fixed.
And that how we get this rampant collection of "data brokers", and all of our data being captured and sold by every platform.
Of course it does. And if iOS brings that much value, then charge a license fee for the purchase of iOS.
But trying to recoup the cost of iOS by taking a cut if store transactions is anti-competitive.
If the store were split off into its own company, would it make any sense to Apple for that company to take all the revenue for the value the store provides? Of course not. Let the store compete on its merits and charge for the value the store provides: API scanning, trusted market place, how publishers are treated... And compete against other stores providing those same values and picking their % cut.
This is incorrect. If a supplier has high leverage in bargaining position they charge a huge surplus. If the group on the opposite side of the table can now collectively bargain, those prices come down, the suppliers fat profit margin is now gone and they actually have an incentive to become more efficient.
If a group can make tons of money with no work they do it. If they can no longer do that, they will look for more effort full approaches including improving efficiency.
I've never seen what you work on so there is no way I can say this with certainty, but generally people unfamiliar eith functional programming have way more code that is / or can be pure in their code base than they realize. Or put the opposite, directly as is if you were to go line by line in your code (skipping lines of comments and whitespace) and give every line a yes/no on whether is performs IO, what percentage are actually performing IO? Not are related to IO, or are preparing for or handing the results of IO, but how many lines are the actual line to write to the file or send the network packet?
Generally, it's a much smaller percentage than people are thinking because they are usually associating actual IO with things "related to" or "preparing for" or "handing results from" IO.
And then after finding that percentage to be lower than expected, it can also be made to be significantly lower by following a few functional programming design approaches.
How many tests do you write at your job (or are supposed to write) before you write the unit of code?
And then it does lead back to your "????" - which presumably represents the answer to the question of "What's the simplest abstraction that allows one to build a "Parser" (would this still be using combinators??) that is powerful enough to parse regular languages, but, by design, not powerful enough to parse context-free languages?"
Hmm, anything else you have in that list I should be looking into? As I also agree they are two of the most interesting things I got from learning Haskell. (Along with type driven reasoning, monoids and functors).
Good call, I would assume so. KYC helps prevent money laundering, bribes and a ton of other illegal transactions. Eliminating it would line up with other actions performed by this admin.
> Fermi Game is a brain teaser that challenges your ability to make real-world (if outlandish) estimates using reasonable assumptions and mathematical reasoning.
What assumptions am I making? All the assumptions have all been made for me? What mathematical training am I doing? What's the point of the separate formulas if they are all present and to be used? How is this order of magnitude thinking if all of the orders of magnitude have been already been determined? It kinda feels like "Hey do you like chess? Come play checkers with chess pieces."
> You're right about all of these, they're mostly there because I just wanted to get out the door and get feedback.
I've got no problem if someone has put a bunch of effort in and made a game and wants feedback. But this feels like asking people to come up with your game for you. It feels you kinda you don't see it as a game either yet.
That said, it's always hard to ship things so congrats on shipping something. It's an interesting idea, but spend a bit of time figuring out the game. Good luck with it!
Respectfully, you should do some reading of basic economics. Absent of external forces to correct for it, wealth absolutely concentrates in unregulated markets.
If a neutral joystick is supposed to output (0,0). Ask the user to take their hands off the joystick for a min, if its default is sending out (-1, -5), then adjust the values by that amount.
Serious question - when did you start paying attention to NGOs?
This is the single thing that in my opinion both the young and also the naive miss. But people who are wise usually seem to understand.
Not everyone learns it with age, but it usually takes some amount of life experience for people to learn it.
Equating a tax on Billionaires to a tax on every import! A tax on corporate jets - it's laughable that people can't see the most basic economic differences in these.
Absolutely not. A Nascar driver isn't hired to drive to the grocery store. Or to run errands. Their not hired to drive leisurely. They're not hired to be the safest driver. They're not hired to drive the absolute highest speed either (and crash). Their hired to win races. And it's important to understand that.
The difference is that in Nascar it's very visible to everyone when a Nascar driver is driving in a way other than what they were hired for, it's not as clear for a programmer. Not to mention success as a programmer also means doing many things other than programming, including knowing when to say "we shouldn't build this".
Why do so many positions claimed to be extremely important on the right seem to only matter when selectively applied?
And yet most people know one of Java, C# and Typescript and know how to use generics with constraints. Meaning they know those concepts. Your arguing my point for me. Knowing those concepts clearly isn't sufficient.
There are three things being discussed that you are conflating. Knowing a concept, knowing it's terminology and knowing how to all of them combine when used in a new concept. Knowing the underlying concepts does not imply the first. And similarly not knowing the terminology does not imply someone does not know the concepts as you seem to think it does.
Except that's not the case because most people know all of those concepts from their main language, and don't know what a monad is.
Higher order functions yup. A function can take a funtion as an argument and correctly assign the argument type (unless C where you can finagle it but it's not first class).
Higher-kinded types? Yup. Prettt much half of "generics". Taking C# that essentially the idea that List<T> is a "type constructor" that allows you to construct a type. If you specify Integer as the T you can say something like List<Integer> and you get a type which is a list of integers.
Parametric polymorphism? Yup. When defining function - for example using List<T>. You can define the implementation of the function using the generic parameter "T" and not have to specify if you are defining the implementation on a list of Integers or a List of String, and the single implementation will work for all of them.
Bounded polymorphism? Yup. Again using C#, you can specify a restring on the "T" type parameter. Instead of saying "T" can be any type at all, you can add a "where" clause that says "T" must implement the ISerializable interface, or it must be a subclass of Foo class.
So most people will read this list. And say "huh, I guess I do already know all of those concepts but by different names." But that doesn't mean they understand Monads conceptually, when to use them nor why. Even if those things are required to read the Monad definition, there is more there.
A rough analogy, but it's like saying people know the visitor or facade design pattern just by reading their type signature. Oh and if instead of having intuitive names their names useless names like "foblax" and "grobalum" design patterns.
The number two mistake people make is being aware of the number one mistake so they go write yet another Monad tutorial in Javascript (or Java or whatever...). Which is why there are so many damn Monad tutorials, all saying pretty much the same thing.
What is the "new right media"?
It's a different type of tool - a person has to treat it that way.
The Health and Human Services secretary is doing product placement ads, the president is selling cars on the white house lawn. Multiple people in their admin /circle are using their office and official handles to promote shitcoins. It's astounding - I've never seen people come in an essentially strip a country for parts. Exploit and ruin every last bit of credibility for their own personan financial enrichment.
Your should read past the initial post to the comments where what your say is refuted.
Maybe stop giving control of our purse strings to the people digging us into this situation.