stcg

It's wrong if they share it. But then they did not 'steal' the information. They shared it (wrongfully).

> If you disagree I'd appreciate if you could tell us your credit card information.

I'm not talking about being obliged to share. Of course people should have the right to not share their credit details. My point is that if you receive information from someone, then choosing to share it with a third party is not stealing.

Actually, an obligation to share information is a restriction on freedom just like copyright, which can prohibit sharing information.

Let's say Alice took a photograph and sends a copy of it to Bob.

Are you then saying that when Bob sends another copy to Charlie, Bob is taking something? What is Bob taking?

Also in these transitive definitions, stealing is about taking. And in the case of piracy (communicating information to others without permission of the original source), nothing is taken.

The person that came up with the idea still has it. The photographer still has the picture. The programmer still has the program.

It's just about what another person may do with it, the one receiving the picture. May they also send it to someone else? We could have different ideas about that, but calling it "stealing" is inaccurate.

It's not stealing. It's communication. You can't "steal" ideas, information or facts. To steal means to physically take someone's property without their consent.

> The `x := 10` example is actually somewhat ambiguous. If the language fixes the type of `10` then `x := 10` is legal. If it's an unspecified type (as is typically the case), you'd have to write the type down.

For that case I like a type signifier as part of the number literal expression, like this: `x := 10f32` or `x := 10i32`.

> The language might be "objectively" simple, but it's not at all a simple language.

You could say that it's simple but not easy

Maybe Clojure. In 2022 it took the top spot for "Top paying technologies" in the annual StackOverflow survey [0], and in 2023 it tied with other lispy languages [1].

That said, I don't think it matters much. A developer familiar with some lispy language (and perhaps functional programming) should be able to quickly pickup any other lispy language. And the developers that make the most money have probably used a lot of programming languages, with different paradigms.

[0]: https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2022/#top-paying-technologie...

[1]: https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2023/#section-top-paying-tec...

A similar saying, which I like more: "code as if your (hypothetical) children will have to maintain it"

Their headphones called Fairbuds XL do have a replaceable battery.

So no phones? That's a shame

I don't understand what I'm looking at here, can someone explain it?

I disagree with this statement in general. Institutions/nature (the game) cannot be held accountable. Persons can be. If we want to change the world, it starts with changing the behaviour of individuals, slowly changing the institution.

Well then don't allow turning it off in the first place.

Datahike [0] provides similar functionality to datomic and is open source. It lacks some features however that Datomic does have [1].

[0]: https://github.com/replikativ/datahike

[1]: https://github.com/replikativ/datahike#when-to-choose-datahi...

The difference in binaries must be caused by some runtime difference of a compiler.

There is a note on another page about it:

https://www.redblobgames.com/grids/parts/#more

> Spiral Honeycomb Mosaic [0] (search the page for "Spiral Honeycomb Mosaic") is an interesting way to assign numbers to hexagons in a hexagonal grid. It results in bizarre properties.

[0] http://paulbourke.net/geometry/tilingplane/

Thanks a lot for your work :)) It was very helpful when I tried to implement a simple version of Settlers of Catan.

But more importantly, reading/interacting with your work is fun! It enthused me to tinker with the concepts and even to try and go beyond the explained theory and think of other ways to tile, encode maps, represent coordinates, etc.

I could get enthusiastic about almost any subject if it's presented this well.

I'm doubting the validity of the proof. It seems to assume that there is exactly one least interesting article (the least interesting article). But maybe there are hundreds of articles that have the same lowest amount of 'interestingness'. I would say that then those hundreds of articles are uninteresting.

This is the nicest solution I've seen so far.

I believe that for the operation of randomly sampling a single row, only the consecutiveness invariant is needed. The random permutation invariant is unnecessary, because the choice from the range (1, N+1) is random anyway.

However, I can imagine the random permutation invariant being useful for other operations (although I can't immediately think of one).

EDIT: the random permutation invariant could maybe be useful for a list that can be displayed to the user. I can imagine some cases where it is nice to have an order that doesn't change a lot while you don't want it to depend on any property in particular (like the order in which the rows were added).

Reading this I wonder if a computer program falls under "any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof". Has it been established that a computer program can be a protection circumvention tool?

That is not theft. It's communication. You can't "steal" ideas, information or facts [footnote]. To "steal" means to physically take someone's property without their consent.

Instead, you seem to mean a violation of copyright. Copyright exists "to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good." "The main purpose of the Copyright Act is the public good of use and access to works of art, even if such a public good comes at the expense of the author of the work." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Century_Music_Corp._...).

And then my opinion: In this age, copyright fails at that. It even has the opposite effect of resulting in less use and less access to works of art. I think it would benefit the public if copyright were abolished (or at least shortened to 20 years, similar to the amount of years that a person gets from a patent to exclusively produce and sell their invention before anyone may do that). I do think however that it should be a duty to mention the source or original author when sharing a work.

[footnote]: but you can neglect to mention the source, or uncover and share information someone wants to keep private

Good writers simplify. Because the reader will be lost if they don't.

> Functional css for humans (https://github.com/tachyons-css/tachyons)

What makes this 'functional'? Is it related to functional programming? Or is it used as a synonym for 'usable'?

Has someone managed to compile this? In the reviews on the linked web page the user 'MobCat' states that it does not compile

Is there an example recording? I'm curious to what such a conversation sounds like

> Where are the meditation instructions that don't reference "Buddha nature", "divine light", or similar supernatural ballast?

I really like the website/app called Waking Up by Sam Harris, I think it fits your description.

I think this was quite a clear and non-threatening note. How is this threatening?

To me this looks a lot like ecto https://github.com/elixir-ecto/ecto

Is there a significant difference?

I agree.

I was confused reading the page and expected a description of a pattern I could use in actual vanilla JavaScript without any dependencies.

The term 'zero-dependency' played a role in my confusion. "VanJS" is a dependency.