alphaalpha101

That still has a very consumerist bent to it. What about some real outcome-based measurements?

Why aren't we measuring how well the economy performs by measuring how healthy people are? Or levels of malnutrition? Or happiness? Or stress? Or education?

We should measure our economic progress by how well we're doing as people, not by how much extra shit rich people can buy.

Apple products don't really seem to display this much. Maybe it's why (or because) they cost twice as much as products from other manufacturers.

Unfortunately, what ends up happening in most cases is that people make products, give them a ridiculous 1y or 2y warranty, then claim that if there're any problems after that time period you'll have to pay to repair or replace.

>If buses would be so much cheaper that special wheel-chair accessible vans could be provided instead then maybe that's a case that should be shrugged-off.

No, it shouldn't. This is the problem with just saying 'the market will fix it'. The market will fix it for rich white able-bodied men and basically nobody else.

What's wrong with 'designing for me' when it's his own stylesheet for the page?

No, a pure function taking the original source code as the only argument.

I disagree. It's a lot harder to see what code using them does at a glance, because the names are meaningless. 'forM' means what, exactly? Nothing. It means nothing until you apply it to a particular monad.

It's trivial to read a loop, because it's right there. It's trivial to tell if it has any effects, because they're notated right there as algebraic effects.

This reminds me of the 'fine-grained permissions' vs. 'broad permissions' security models. The former is more expressive, more powerful, etc. It also is technical, complicated and confusing. The latter is less powerful and less expressive, but people actually use it, because it's simple and easy to understand.

Expressing effects using monad transformer stacks might be more expressive and allow finer-grained distinctions, or whatever (please elaborate what you mean, I'm interested), but it's syntactically ugly (lift), it's confusing, and it's not clear that the expressiveness you get is practically useful.

In contrast, algebraic effects might 'only handle effects that trivially commute' (again, going to need more detail on this), but they're easy to understand and easy to use. They're much more likely to be a practically usable effect system that real programmers can really use in the real world in a way that doesn't convolute code with details of how you compose effects unduly.

I'll point out again that this is very reminiscent of the OOP fad and "everything is an object". "Everything is a monad" is similar.

"It's all just the CPU monad" is just.. inane. It's like saying 'C functions are pure functions that implicitly take and return the world'. Maybe? But at that point 'pure' has lost all of its information content.

I think that the stock market model encourages short-term thinking. I think everyone agrees with that.

Thankfully there's another option: just don't sell out. Stay private. You might not become a billionaire, but who really wants to be a billionaire anyway?

>The benefit of working with typeclasses has always been the ability to see and abstract out patterns that occur through Functors, Applicatives, Monoids, et al.

Which leads to code that needs to be puzzled out, rather than code that flows naturally. 'What does [arbitrary-monad-operationM_] mean for SomeMonadTransformerStack again???' is all too common in my experience.

I really think that's false abstraction, like an 'object' superclass in OO languages.

Yeah at the end of the day it's just another programming language, and you can really get things done in any programming language.

The most important feature of monads definitely isn't composition, because they don't compose well at all. Monad composition is the worst feature, by far, because it doesn't exist.

>Also, as someone in the Haskell industry, I think you're wrong about trends. The last 5 or so years have been an accelerating trend of Haskell adoption. Of course it is still dwarfed by most other languages, but the number of multi-million dollar contracts I've seen executed in Haskell has been multiplying.

That's my point: that's the hype cycle, and it's now peaking as people realise what a lot of effort it is to actually use monads in reality with the awful complexity of monad transformer stacks and such.

Thank god. I've felt like we've been getting closer to breaching the peak of the hype curve for what I'd probably call 'monadic pure functional programming' i.e. Haskell, Scalaz, etc. It'll have its hardcore advocates forever, of course, but I think we might be finally getting to the point where people realise 'wait this sure is an absurd amount of complexity to represent some fairly simple functions, surely there must be a better way?'.

And there, again, the myth is repeated that the market is an efficient way to encourage good ideas.

It isn't. It's a good way to encourage safe ideas.

I think this would be far more useful as an overlay over a physical map than just entirely replacing one.

By that, I mean.. think of isobars.

I disagree about the London tube map. I think it's brilliant. I barely looked at a real map any of the times I've stayed in London. I know the places I want to go, all the guide books (and locals!) tell you the nearest tube station, I know the nearest tube station to where I am. Why do I need a 'real' map?

>Blocking a road is not free speech. Preventing people from going into a building is not free speech. This is just private citizens attempting to restrict the right of movement of other private citizens.

It's a march. It's a protest. Protesting is free speech. Of course it's free speech.

>The right to publish any media, no matter how obscene or political, is free speech. And the US has the closest to free speech of any major country.

No, that's freedom of the press. Freedom of speech is about protesting.

And of course it makes sense in context. ('It' being changing an agrarian capitalist society to an agrarian communist society - clearly the natural progression.)

It has everything to do with free speech. It wasn't about being 'disorderly', it was about laughing at a confirmation hearing being considered disorderly.

The USA doesn't have freedom of speech in any meaningful sense. You only have to look at the way peaceful protestors are treated to see that. The Occupy Wall Street protesters were treated horrifically.

As more and more formerly public places are privatised and the veneration of private property as an ideal above all others continues, the USA is simply running out of places where you're even allowed to protest. And that's not even considering so-called 'free speech zones', as if free speech is limited to a fucking place.

This is free speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikoi#/media/File:Hikoi_FS.JPG

In the USA these people would be arrested for blocking a road.

>"Rights to be forgotten" is another peculiar notion popular in some TV propaganda driven Western countries loving makeovers. Keep on rocking in the free world while it lasts.

Right to be forgotten isn't peculiar and neither is it at all related to "makeover" TV programmes or freedom.

Right to be forgotten is about have a right to your own information. Collecting information doesn't give you a right to it. Something being publicly available doesn't make it actually public.

The Holodomor wasn't an attempt to enforce power, it was a genuine attempt to modernise agriculture by forcing the change to happen.

That's just plainly false. It's entirely possible to implement it using employees that are human reviewers.

If that's not profitable then they should rework their business model until it is profitable.

You don't 'teach it'. You learn it.

That's rather disingenuous, because Haskell forces you to use `newtype` wrappers for lots of things you shouldn't need them for and don't need them for in C++.

Just use a password manager with a single long secure pass phrase you can remember.

across a network in modern parlance

So it's not a daemon or a server. It's just a process. Running some code in a separate process isn't a 'server' it's just how all programmes operate.

This isn't a thing elsewhere?