sandbags

This is a good article. Especially in that it talks a little bit about error handling which does not feel like a strength of NimbleParsec.

Another good resource is this talk by Saša Jurić on Parsing from First Principles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNzoerDljjo) where he talks about parser combinators and live-codes a simple Elixir PC library.

That inspired me to build my own alternative to NimbleParsec . Partly because my use case makes error handling very important and I couldn't get a grip on how to do that with NP and partly as a decent problem to get to grips with Elixir. I'm currently figuring out lookahead.

This is a great area to play in that has a lot of useful applications.

It looks like there is a real effort now to get TCC working on macOS which would be amazing.

Despite being unable to play it for I don’t know how long, my VHS copy of this is still a prized possession. It was my introduction to Ted Nelson’s ideas as well as a raft of other things and is also a beautiful creation in its own right.

I'd have preferred that they asked me to grade my interactions but this seems to be the right move.

If memory serves from when I used to work for a retailer (some 30 years ago now) we were required to submit the name & address of anyone who rented/bought a TV. I think they just tallied this list against their database.

I have a 2016 MBP that’s had one keyboard replacement, I am living with the stuttering that I now have in the replacement. I have refused to upgrade and will continue to do so until they fix this (and the T2 issues, and the audio issues, and the overheating issues).

What puzzles me is why the money used to purchase the property portfolio by a foreign investor is not subject to money laundering checks? Is this just corruption/government looking the other way?

Last time I had an eye exam (UK, Boots) they of course gave me the prescription because they are obliged to, but under no circumstances would they give me a PD. I forget their exact reason but it was something about needing to relate it to the choice of glasses. Sounded like horse-shit designed to make me buy their overpriced frames to me. I do not expect to have any better luck this year.

My understanding is that there has been, and for many years, a 'revolving door' between the Ministry of Defence and the various defence procurement companies & arms manufacturers. So, preserving defence company profits is, I think, a built-in to UK government policy. Further, since the whole area is shrouded in secrecy, it appears to be nigh on impossible to pour sunlight or cold water on what happens in this area.

Uncommon although might run into a speckled band here or there.

I'm still trying to grapple with the point of this thing. Does Apple have so few macOS developers that they couldn't have written a native news app? What are the iOS apps people are so desperate for on macOS that the developers refuse to port? Unless AppKit is going away, I feel like I am missing something.

Who chooses?

I also think it’s interest to listen to Hickeys rationale for why things were not included in Clojure or why things are how they are. I have found his talks on language design to be very clear and rational.

He appears to have specific aims and seems unafraid to make the necessary compromises to achieve them.

I guess I am struggling to get across what I mean.

I see Hickey as having a specific, focused, goal about enabling simplicity (given his specific meaning for that word) and yes I totally agree that every designer, including Hickey, does as you say.

What I was trying to get across was that I don’t see the guiding principle that guide the selection of those “best” features to include so much as “there’s this great stuff” that we must include.

Does that make more sense? Or should I put down my shovel?

I should add I am not trying to make a comparison between Swift & Clojure but between what I see as a fundamental difference in the design principles that lead to those languages and why they might matter.

"It’s really about taking the best ideas from where we can get them and assembling them together." ~ Chris Lattner

I think this is the root of my dislike of Swift. "Assembling" together the best ideas, which may only be 'best' within a specific context does not suggest the kind of design principles I am looking for in a language.

I was looking for a quote and it seems it was Antoine de Saint Exupéry who said something like "It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove."

So I contrast Lattner/Swift with Hickey/Clojure: a small set of coherent design choices that lead to a language that is simple but deep. It's by no means all things to all women and that's a good thing.

What do you mean by “Mojave is getting iOS security model”. What I’ve seen announced is that, as of 10.14, the system will ask the user when an app first wants access to, e.g., microphone or camera. Do you mean something else?

As I remember things, for the most part, no. Which is to say that of course there were people doing FP (Lisp is old as the hills & Haskell was launched in 1990) but my perception was that it wasn’t remotely mainstream in the way it is now.

My guess with all of these sites is that they are willing to give me the data I gave them, but not the data they inferred about me or pieced together from other sources. My concern is that this data may be more sensitive and hold more potential for harm than what I gave them (since I was willing to share it with them in the first place).

Fantastic. The project itself is rare and fascinating. I wonder if there is an English translation of the sci-fi novel based on Cybersyn in a coup-less alternate reality.

I'd also be interested in reading this.

Dinosaurs now, as then (except that I probably do a disservice to our saurian brothers and sisters).

If i understand what they are doing then it's not really equivalent as this seems to be a DSL for transforming textual patterns into music, rather than a general purpose music language. While you can dive under the covers it's not required. Getting to this point in Overtone would be some work, so here you can just get started playing with it. Chuck i have less experience with enough to think the same thing applies.

The pedant in me already observes that any programming language is "a DSL for transforming textual patterns into..." but i hope my sense in representing the difference is clear enough.

Is there a useful introduction reference to 'context-free conversational change'? The Google results did not appear promising.

Yes but most funds are marketed as repaying in 10 years and, even if some take longer, the VC presumably does not want that (since it, presumably, prejudices their chances of raising their next fund).

Expect an even bigger fund raise where they hope some other idiots, with even deeper pockets, will keep picking up the tab.

I will add that there are two current legal challenges and I suspect there will be more.

On the leadership of the party I concede, strictly, your point. We don't vote for a PM, although clearly people knew who they were voting to be the PM.

But the government was elected with a manifesto commitment to protect our interests in Europe and hold a referendum. It was not, to my knowledge, invested with a mandate to act on that referendum in the way that it is doing.

Why do you have to take such a tone? Can we not disagree and argue without adhominem attacks?

Your argument is a fallacy. In any division there are going to be those who agree and disagree with the outcome. Of course the people who get what they "wanted" don't argue against it. But they also shouldn't argue against the legitimacy of those who don't to continue to argue their point. That is the difference here.

Yes, there was a vote on an advisory referendum that had not specific details about what the outcome should be. What does that make legitimate?

If Theresa may had decided that to leave the EU we had to go to war with Europe, would that be legitimised by the vote?

This argument is about the terms of any such approach and how to legitimise those.

Yes there was a vote. But it was a vote on a very ambiguous set of terms that was also an advisory vote, not a binding vote. This vote has been taken by an unelected Prime Minister serving out a term won on a mandate to protect UK interests in Europe. The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate.

Agree completely. An ambiguous referendum that gave no guidance. An unelected PM who has taken it upon herself to define the most egregious future path. The only ethical stance is to set out definite terms (which I guess she is now doing) and hold a general election (which I am 100% sure she will not).