scj

There's a related "What if Netscape went with Scheme as it's scripting language?"

I'd solve the complexity transition problem by producing a header & linkable library so traditional languages can interact with the "no-code".

Of course, for profit companies probably don't want to implement an off-ramp.

I still associate the smell of cigarette smoke with doughnuts.

In the brief period when they were still baking in store and indoor smoking was banned, it was a pleasant experience to go into a Tims, even if you were just getting a coffee.

C's greatest feature is that it trivially maps onto .so files. Linking to and creating .so files isn't just cheap, it's effectively free.

Most higher level languages I've worked with seem to focus on using .so files rather than producing them.

This means the lowest common denominator for the unix ecosystem is what C can provide. Otherwise stated, unix is marching forward at the pace of C.

From what I'm reading, L5 would need to handle the annual meeting of the summer tires club... Assuming that's a problem in NY or Chicago.

Even if the behaviour is defined, relying on defined non-obvious behaviours means relying on subsequent programmers to have read the spec.

A legislative staffer donating to an organization outside the jurisdiction of Canada which vowed to ignore Canadian finance laws...

By population, we're a small country. If this becomes a regular occurrence, Canadians are going to need to pay for the tax burden of policing foreign-financed supercharged protest groups!

Beyond that, giving foreigners input on Canadian policy through money is undemocratic.

I miss American benign neglect.

"Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." - Pierre Trudeau, 1969

When trying to grasp the Canadian point of view on GoFundMe, understanding the primal fear this quote invokes in us is vital.

IANAL, I'm pretty sure the only question that matters is if Section 1 of the Charter [0] is sufficient to meet the government's goals. If not, Section 33 certainly is.

Since 1986, the Oakes test has become the way to determine Section 1's applicability.

The former legislators thoughts and experiences of 1981/1982 are simply irrelevant in our legal system [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine

Appointed by the Federal Government.

Chretien was instrumental in the authorship of the Charter, signed the Proclamation of it alongside QE2, and is still alive.

The website's way of phrasing that is misleading, even if partially true.

And to further illustrate your point... The greatest authority on post-1982 Constitutionalism in Canada wasn't a politician, but a legal scholar, Peter Hogg. Sadly, he died in 2020.

If they were accidentally infringing licenses, this scattershot approach may result in snitching on their own company.

That's how a log4j security audit becomes an Oracle licensing debacle.

More problematically, in a character set you don't know!

Iconography is required.

IANAL...

Coles Notes version: Unless someone can point out a specific abuse, given the current State of Emergency declared in Parliament, the government could just make a semi-coherent argument and a judge would let the people decide in the next election.

But understand, that's a gross oversimplification where I didn't show my work and jumped to the conclusion. Explaining in detail, while explaining the differences between our legal systems would be far too much effort.

I'd add to his argument, that the problem with software and uptime is that every time we add a layer of abstraction or library, the five 9s factor may apply.

    Math.pow(.99999, 1) - One dependency.
    Math.pow(.99999, 2) - Two dependencies.
    ...
    Math.pow(.99999, N) - N dependencies.

And that assumes everyone is aiming for 99.999% uptime. Which isn't true.

There's other factors, but that's the one I'd point out.

The word hoax isn't correct.

This is satire. A parody based on Stroustrup's many defenses of C++.

It makes me laugh every time I read it. Some day, hopefully many years from now, I suspect someone will write "Bjarne's Deathbed Confession" with the exact same premise, just updated.

"The peripheral drivers team needs to increase it's revenue."

I think a reasonably priced RISC-V psuedo-retrocomputer that boots directly into Lisp / Scheme on simple to use hardware would be a great computer to learn programming on.

Should be just as understandable to a newbie as a 6502 / Basic combo, but with a much better path to current computing environments.

IANAL: Merger Doctrine is closest thing I'm aware of.

One note I have about numbers like these...

Is the question phrased in a way that distinguishes between "working remotely as you have during COVID times" vs. "working remotely post-COVID"

I think it's important to distinguish that in the mind of the responder. At the very least, get people thinking in terms of "What would WFH be like if the kids were at school much of the day?" or "What would WFH be like if we could meet with friends at 17:30?" or whatever.

What we've experienced over the last year is far less social, and far more stressful than what WFH could be.

Personally, I'd like to WFH most of the time, with sprint & release planning sessions in person.

Rational self-interest of wanting commodity software for infrastructure / tooling.

A clear winner means more companies use it, increasing demand for it. Which makes it more valuable to master.

If the commodity software is open source, I can learn it at home for a low cost. Then use it at work, again for a low cost. Employers have an interest in using it, as do I.

So I want to encourage Amazon, and other tech companies, to use as much open source as possible! Please increase demand for my skillset!

Of course, the eternal problem is how the software gets developed in the first place. But I really don't want software that bifurcates organizations vs. individuals to become a cultural norm. Even if the impact of any single case is minimal.

It likely forces an inflection point for existing MIPS users:

1. Stick with MIPS for as long as possible.

2. Follow MIPS into RISC-V.

3. Or go to some other camp.

There's a difference between a stowaway and taking the ship.

One's infringement, the other is piracy (or theft in the more general case).

Scientists thinking like scientists!

I'd presume an advanced culture that can traverse the galaxy has many resources. Like humanity, I'd assume that with abundance, entertainment would be prioritized.

We might be nothing more than a new source of fashion and novelty to them! They may like Rock & Roll, our food, our clothing, or even pogs.

We might even be boring to them for the moment, but they're hoping for a future payoff.

Or they could just look at us as a future source of diversity in their society. The different methods of creating sentient beings might be of great importance to a post-biological society (maybe there's charm in our resource inefficiency).

Determining the motivations of a post-singularity society is a difficult task. It's fun because it forces you to think beyond your current means. But I wouldn't consider it a productive endeavor.

A species on a planet with low gravity or the ability to hibernate might have a different tech tree than humanity.

That being said, my bet is on the side that most species send AI to different solar systems before biological ones arrive.

Whatever the limits may be... The heart of the problem is that the answer should be derived through the local democratic process. Not imposed on you by foreigners (and that means Americans in the German and French cases).

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater... Can you incite a riot, or hatred? What about representing fictions as fact in the news? What are the limits of satire?

The American answers to these questions aren't the same as they are in other nations.

While I don't fully agree with some of my nation's answers to these questions, at least I theoretically have a democratic voice in what those standards and laws are. But some private company in a foreign nation with foreign beliefs is unaccountable from my perspective.

Even if I boycott it, it doesn't mean much so long as my neighbors, friends, and family are using it.

I'd suggest that any new voting system in Canada would lead to very different results given time.

Parties that aren't in contention for a given riding will be replaced by parties that are (think evolutionary niches).

"The usage of pork broth in an otherwise vegetarian dish is vegetarian in spirit."

I can't help but wonder if they're using the phrase "open source in spirit" to leech the branding of open source (while ironically treating other companies as leeches).