antisemiotic

And then you actually try to write it in a functional language, and end up with something like:

cake = map (cool . bake 30 175) . splitIntoPans $ mix [ butter, sugar, walnuts ]

How is it so? Lazy evaluation (and thus the concept of a (weak-head) normal form, and the possibilty of space leaks) is pretty fundamental to Haskell. It's also impossible to write generic folds (i.e. without adding an NFData constraint, which comes from outside the standard library) that evaluate further than WHNF. And just making all things may lead to worse performance or even non-termination in some cases, anyway.

>The only reason the second speaker would say "When I see xyz on the floor" is because she has seen it before and that feeling happens every time. It's not as explicit as "you always", but it still implies a recurring and reliable event.

Hmm yeah, I agree that including that information (but more precisely than "you always") is useful here.

>I am curious that the social trend comes to you as a priority in "it's disgusting", that's not a perspective I would see.

Okay, disgusting socks may not be the best example, because it's pretty clear cut that leaving them in the open is not an acceptable roommate behavior. Can't think of something better right now. Maybe something like stereotypical "leaving the toilet seat up" or "hanging the toilet paper towards the wall or not"? thing is, that framing the discussion in terms of what is acceptable or not is a roundabout and, frankly, manipulative, by elevating personal view to an objective fact.

>You are burying the point by saying observations about feelings are facts.

At the end of the day, feelings are physiological reactions that have already happened. One can discuss whether one side should change, or the other should suck it up next time.

>It could very well be true from the first speaker's observations Felix always does leave his socks out.

That's not a feeling, that's an extrapolation from a mental model, that can't possibly hold in the real world. This leaves Felix no real recourse outside of some pointless back-and-forth.

>I mean that's all well in good in a normal social atmosphere

I think it's the entire point of NVC. No one in their sane mind suggests talking like that to a mugger or thief (though any other kind of talking would be equally ineffective).

>For better or worse one could draw the parallel between that political idea and this book.

Well I didn't notice that parallel before. I don't think the whole idea should be thrown under the bus because of it in any case.

>The only explicit difference is the demand to do it immediately.

No. The first speaker exaggerates the issue to make a point ("you always"), makes a roundabout reference to societal norms ("it's disgusting") instead of describing what actually annoys them (socks lying on the floor right now) and why (I don't want to see them because I personally find them disgusting, not because Felix failed to meet some outside standard).

>A competent person must be able to deal with both speakers.

Sure, but you can't change how others deal with your words. You can only choose how you yourself communicate.

>Describing words as violence fundamentally undermines the "old" (aka what I grew up with) liberal western order that was do whatever you want as long as it brings no harm.

I think you describe two problems here:

* The name is indeed unfortunate. * It is percieved as an objective standard against which to judge all communication, rather than a guide for one's own actions.

As I see it, it's generally pointless to expect others to behave in a certain "right" way that you can reasonably suspect they might not, and then get annoyed when they indeed don't. Speaking in a pointlessly confrontational manner (such as making arguments from omniscience, like "you always", or "you are a ___ person" etc) is more likely to provoke an aggressive reaction than sticking to the facts (observations about your own feelings are also facts). Why not choose the latter?

I'm also surprised by all the talk about Sublime's death. I use it all the time for everything except C++ (for which I use CLion) and it's good as it is, I don't see why would it need update churn. Well, except for still making money for the author, I guess.

Nice job ripping a new asshole in a theme-park version of buddhism, but I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to communicate here. I mean, yeah, sitting on your ass doing nothing your entire life is a bad idea, sure.

A doctor doesn't have to be sick with all the diseases they know about.

This has the added benefit of disabling local password managers like PasswordSafe. Might as well throw in some stupid password policy (like maximum password length, or banning some special characters but not explaining which) to make sure stubborn users won't use a secure password even if they're willing to type it in every time.

Not exactly lisps, but Carp (https://github.com/carp-lang/Carp) and Scopes (https://bitbucket.org/duangle/scopes/wiki/Home) might be worth a look. I haven't tried the former, and couldn't get the latter to do anything useful, though. (it looks like the author stopped responding to issues, sadly).

Microsoft ships the entire Ubuntu, which does contain GPL3 code. Maybe they get away with it because it's not so integrated with the rest of Windows.

And thus instead of being outwitted by a superintelligent AI maximizing paperclips, we end up with a pantheon of blind idiot gods, tended to by priests who don't understand them, and kept alive with human sacrifice.

Stallman as the modern day st. Francis?

Even more extreme version would be abbreviations like "k8s" or "a11y". T4h s7s I w2h p4e w1o a3e t3e w3d j2t f2k o1f a1d d1e.

So the way to fix dysfunctional meetings is not to split them into manageable sizes, but rather shift them into some sort of impromptu unpaid overtime, and bribe your staff with alcohol in hopes that they won't notice?

I'm not sure if it's possible to please everyone in a world where it's easier to call a lynch mob than to parse a compound sentence.

I have a similar experience. Standups keep me at least vaguely informed on what other people are doing, provide an opportunity to take the pressure off poor souls buried under a new influx of tasks, and are perhaps some light team building (such as the canned joke that a burndown chart isn't supposed to look even remotely like that, or something in the lines of "help me, those goddamn morons from $OVERSEAS_BRANCH at it again"). 10 minutes tops, and back to work.

If I were to compile a list of workspace annoyances, even the most pointless standup would be way after serious business like "people standing behind my back while talking to someone".

As much as I wish you weren't, I think you're actually behind the curve on this. Barely anyone defines left-wing politics this way any more; it's all about idpol and capitalist realism now.

I was referencing an old joke; that Haskell programmers allegedly spend so much time polishing their types that they never get around to actually write anything useful.

>Production code should be understandable by an on-call person at 4 am.

I don't like the "simple language means understandable code" argument being thrown around like it was some obvious fact. I'm currently working on a project whose major component is a byzantine home-grown message passing framework written in pretty much Java-in-C++ (old school OO with liberal use of shared pointers. Not that I would call C++ in any form "simple", but I do think that C++ without template magic is simpler than Haskell with GHC magic, or, say, any Lisp with a lot of macros). Maybe it's a case of grass being greener on the other side, but I'd gladly take a monad transformer stack or a DSL written in Lisp macros over doing the same song and a dance over and over again just to implent a tiny new functionality, or trying to deduce the logic from someone else's sea of boilerplate.

I mean, taking this logic to extreme, one could say that code written in assembly is easy to understand: it's adding a value to EAX now, then it jumps over there...

This being said, Haskell does have something in it that encourages one to design a ballistic algebra that runs in the type system before even pointing a gun at one's foot.

Did New Horizons categorically rule out that there's something hidded inside Charon?

Do you also browse the web through a daemon that emails you pages, Stallman-style?

What about just losing software patents altogether? Sorry, but from my perspective on the other side of Atlantic, it looks like a yet another example of "there's no way to avoid this - says the only country where this happens".

Have you perchance tried Void Linux? I wanted to try it, but didn't get around to do it yet.

Move fast, break teeth.

I was looking for something like this actually, I thought I would finally have to warm up to BSD if I wanted an OS that I have some hope of understanding fully.

And then there's you, trivialising the whole discussion with the "did nothing wrong" meme. How is that intellectually gratifying?

You left out from your list the stance that while Stallman did in fact, repeatedly, do wrong, he still didn't deserve to get his words mangled by the press (which undoubtedly contributed to the public outrage).

"We have only ten knots of delta-v left, captain!"

Think `data Foo a = Foo (a -> Bool)`, pardon my Haskell. A function `map :: (a -> b) -> Foo a -> Foo b` is impossible, however `contramap :: (a -> b) -> Foo b -> Foo a` is fine (just pre-compose the given function with the stored function).

Even worse with `data Bar a = Bar (a -> a)`.

How is this a Ponzi scheme?

Stallman's career of relentlessly pissing upwind is ended by a disagreement on the implications of the phrase "presented to". A weird time to be alive.