asdkjh345fd

Well, since I don't know what guideline I broke, and you refuse to tell me, I guess the obvious answer is no.

The data used to compile HadCRUT4.

That is what everyone means when they say "run out of oil". Read it as "run out of oil worth extracting". We're obviously not going to spend 2 TJ of energy to extract oil that contains 1 TJ of energy.

The parent poster didn't complain about anything, he pointed out the flaw in the grandparent poster's claim.

No, facebook doesn't. The good programmers facebook hires don't work on the legacy PHP code. They do stuff like sigma. Also, I am not describing a problem, I am pointing out that their perceived problem doesn't exist. If I can hire a good programmer and make them write PHP, I could also hire the good programmer and let them write in a tolerable language, so the mythical "its easy to find PHP devs and impossible to find anything else devs" claim is out the window.

>And last, people compare it to languages like Rust or Go since they consider those are "innovative"

No, they do not. The entire appeal of go is that there is zero innovation at all. It is the most plain, boring, ordinary language around. It does absolutely nothing different or neat or new or special. Instead, it focus on being simple, easy and fast. Just like PHP apologists keep claiming about PHP. The difference is go was developed by competent software developers, so it isn't a broken, buggy, inconsistent mess.

>PHP was created for website development

And yet it is outclassed for that purpose by general purpose languages like go.

>and in that area neither Go or Rust are even close to matching it in terms of maturity.

Age is not maturity. PHP is old. It is less terrible than it was 20 years ago, but it is still worse that any other language except javascript.

Some people simply have reasonable standards. I tried for years to hire a PHP dev. I never found a single one. I found tons of people who had PHP on their resume, and not a single one of them was anything close to competent. PHP only makes hiring easy if you don't care about the quality of work that gets done. I can hire a million PHP monkeys, but everyone who has the right combination of intelligence and conscientiousness to be a competent software developer moves on from PHP after 2 or 3 years as they discover what it is.

I spent 17 years going through that. I can't say I recovered my optimism, but I stopped being cynical and am now realistic (which people tend to think is pessimistic), but without it being negative. Get off the drugs, move into the country and eat a lot of peaches. Technology will never be enjoyable again, and that's a good thing. Grow your own food, make your own tools, build your own furniture. Use your intelligence to make your life better instead of helping greedy people try to shove more ads in front of people.

>can't we simply compare the populations that consume a lot of omega-3 ( fish primarily ) vs those who don't?

That's how we came up with the hypothesis in the first place. But that's all such a study can do, give us a hypothesis. There are too many confounding factors (smoking rates, alcohol consumption, poverty, environmental toxins, ethnicity, other dietary differences, etc) to answer the question of omega 3 relevance. We need studies like this one, only with objective measurements instead of asking subjective questions to draw conclusions.

Have you considered reading it?

In this case it doesn't matter, because the tracks are long since abandoned and there are no trains coming. Once the UN updates their "facts" to reflect the actual facts and no longer promotes climate hysteria, will you stop screaming about the impending train coming to mow us down?

There is no such thing as imperative syntax. Syntax is completely orthogonal to being imperative, which is semantic not syntactic.

It isn't "almost C-like syntax", unless you define that to mean "if I do any amount of search and replace I can make it into valid C code that has completely different semantics". "x <- a" in haskell is not at all the same as "x = a" in C.

And that isn't the reason I said your comment is wrong. Your comment is wrong because do notation is not the result of "40 years of research in functional PL", nor is it an accomplishment. It is simple syntactic sugar that didn't come from research at all.

Your comment could be accurately summarized as "I would like to express how smug I feel for not learning something".

We currently have massive unemployment, and low quality, toxic food. I think rather than giving everyone a "basic income" to purchase that inferior food, we should give them jobs producing better food, and the overall increased price of food wouldn't be any worse than the cost of UBI.

I don't think it is harsh enough. The comment is devoid of substance and wrong.

Right, the entire world is wrong because you can't admit a fault in a random piece of software you are emotionally invested in. Makes sense.

Farmers haven't been hard working in decades. There's a reason most farmers are obese, sitting isn't hard work. Even when I was a kid everyone around here still did square bales of hay and tossed them around by hand. Now it is 100% round bales handled with a loader. As everything got bigger, there was simply no possibility of human involvement because people can't lift 800 pounds.

It would just shift more to healthier meat like beef instead of so much chicken. Beef production requires no large tractors, seeders, harvesters, etc. You are just letting cows eat grass. Chicken production is basically an extra step in corn production, so it needs all the equipment involved in corn production.

I think that is actually a very harmful myth that huge multinational corporations want to keep in people's minds. We produce less food per acre with modern industrial farming, not more. They optimize for total cost, not for land use. We could feed more people than we feed now just fine without any modern equipment, it would simply create lots of jobs.

Read the rest of the discussion.

Yes, the type is very interesting to know. That's why other languages make it known. Ignoring the entire discussion to reply twice with "nu uh!" is not very productive.

If something is unclear, you can ask for clarification. I repeated the statement to three people because three people repeated the same argument to me. This is how conversations work. I have very limited exposure to haskell, am not detached from reality, and am taking nothing personal. Of course the discussion is serious, why would I spend time engaging in a frivolous and meaningless discussion?

>But the name of that type depends on the type of the range and on the callable.

That should not be a problem. It is a problem in D because of a lacking in D.

>How would you suggest improving the signature of map given that D doesn't have typeclasses?

The language needs fixed so it can express its own types.

It gives us much more information than "something". It tells us it is a list of the type of the second argument to the function we passed it. Or in the generic version a "something you can iterate over" of things of the type of the second argument to the function we passed.

>It takes an input range

Which should have a type.

>and returns a type that iterates through that range

Which should have a type. The entire point is that this is a solved problem, there is no excuse to simply throw up our hands and say "screw documentation we'll just say this function is a mystery".

Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

And please don't miss the point and tell me D doesn't have Functor. The entire point is that D has something, and it doesn't tell us what that something is. It should. Documentation is good.

Read the transcript. He did not. And a reporter specifically asked for clarification, and got it. There was absolutely no confusion, this is deliberate misrepresentation by "journalists" who value clickbait over truth.

So? They still have a type, it doesn't have to be "screw you figure it out yourself".

Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

Of course not. But it still has a type.

Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b

>With highly generic functions, it's often not possible to know what they'll return without knowing what you'll call them with.

Of course it is. Map's type is "(a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]". D just absolutely and completely failed here, despite this being a solved problem 40 years ago.

I didn't suggest it was pejorative, and I know what it is. There are not two school of thought, that's a false dichotomy. That is like saying "there are two schools of thought, catholic and protestant". You can want to prevent the decline of language without insisting on trying to bring back already lost definitions like a prescriptivist.