421 karma · joined December 13, 2008
I suppose I've used some identities in enough places that it would be hard to deny to certain entities that the identity was mine, but even in that case it's a small subset of entities which have seen the identity that could prove that it's me.
I would like to set my cruise control to just be "current speed limit". If these cars are going to start monitoring the speed limit to the degree of being able to tell if you're breaking the law, they better have such a setting. If they don't then it seems almost like some sort of entrapment.
Again, you are presenting this as if it has only one side to it. I need a computer that has no walled garden for certain kinds of work. For other kinds of work I'm happy to know I can't break it. Even more important, I'm happy when my parents can't break the one I buy them.
>More ads won’t scare me because I won’t use app with any ads. If app offers one time purchase - I’ll buy it if I like it.
As long as such an option exists. But in a true race to the bottom situation, there may not be anyone willing to invest in developing an app and then selling for a one time purchase. One time purchase is a model that's nearly dead anyway.
>What if Apple decided you cannot install apps outdide off their App Store on a Mac neither?
This I wouldn't accept because I can't. It's a development machine for me. But an iPad is a consumption device, I need the thing to just always work.
For me personally, all of the above is the cost and what I get is something I wasn't using and didn't miss (if I want to install things outside the walled garden, I use a my Mac not a mobile device).
Exception handling, for example, uses dynamic scoping since you don't know what will be handling your exception when you write code which throws it.
Another way of thinking about it is, with dynamic scoping the value of the dynamic variable must always be on the stack and the closest one is the value that will be used. This is a really good behaviour for global variables since a common source of bugs is some global variables (and I'm considering class members "global" for this) getting changed unexpectedly. If the variable is lexical then it can be very hard to figure out what changed the value (especially when threads are involved) but if the variable is dynamic it's easy: the culprit is in the stack trace.
I think you can do this in Idris with "total" functions.
As someone else said, if you have some kind of interface to "mock" you can just make this a parameter to a function and pass in the "mock" versions for tests and the regular one for the real program (or select from a set of them based on some parameter or something). A framework would just mean I can't just read from main, I'll have to figure out which DI framework is being used, where that is configured and what things effect its decision making. I see why we ended up doing this in OO but I really don't see the benefit anymore in functional programming with the more direct (and no less flexible) approach.
If you adjust for scale, I would be utterly flabbergasted if home schooling had a higher per capita rate of abuse than actual public schools unless public schools have changed to the point of being utterly unrecognisable from the 80-90's when it was inflicted on me.
Comments don't compile, so the only documentation of what code is doing guaranteed to be correct is the code itself.
I think digital currency is here to stay. Further, I think most people are wrong about it what it will mean. People seem to see it as some utopian freedom. What I see if a cash replacement that has traceability on a scale which was never possible before. And it's all public (at least for most of the coins). If your government said tomorrow that all your cash would be converted to a digital currency like bitcoin but all existing regulation would be in place then they could watch literally every cent you spend. Further, if it stayed public like bitcoin, so could advertisers. They wouldn't need to place like buttons all over the web to watch what you're doing. They could just watch your account. Using any kind of anonymisers would be made among the harshest of crimes so you cannot escape the observation.
I hear a lot of proponents saying digital currency is the way to reduce the power of government and the banks. I think, in the end, this will give both power on a scale never before dreamed.
In any case, Petty apparently always won his races pretty closely. So he obviously only had a slight advantage over his competition... except that there were cases where some mishap (e.g. in the pits) left him multiple laps down (I believe as much as 7). He'd recover every single lap and then still barely win the race. No one ever thought to check his car for cheating because he didn't appear to be crushing the competition if you didn't realise he would have been capable of winning by probably dozens of laps or more.