such_a_casual

I mean, I don't think there's anyone in California smoking weed grown in Mexico. There just wouldn't be any reason to.

So refusing to look up function definitions in python is the equivalent of using pure-functional languages and learning new paradigms? Please.

Honestly, I nor anyone else has any idea what she or he means by functional since they didn't provide any sort of example, and it's not even clear that the user would even know functional programming if they saw it. They referenced python, so should we assume they don't understand what map does? Map is just a function which is properly documented and easy to find help on. Is the user saying that they aren't able to look up the definition for a function they don't understand? Are they saying they refuse to look up definitions for functions they don't understand? How on earth do they get anything done if they refuse/can't look up function definitions?

What I'm trying to say is that it's very likely the user doesn't even know what "functional" means. They just hear some keyword they don't understand and dismiss anything that follows. Because when you think about it, it doesn't really make any sense that a programmer could be a programmer if they couldn't look up things they don't understand.

> I don't want to learn something else ;)

Maybe programming isn't for you then.

It's a little absurd to compare a story with essentially 1 thesis and 1 antithesis, to a story full of theses and antitheses where the reader is constantly asking "Which thesis will prevail above which?" and ultimately, "Which thesis will prevail above all?" The authors are doing completely different things. The latter of which is objectively more difficult than the former, the latter of which is much more representative of the world in which we all live.

Honestly, it's pretty rude of you to make me spit out my coffee.

T-shirt in question: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Munition...

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars

But if they ban encryption, there won't be any more bad guys.

I used the word explicit because I was thinking something along the lines of: the scope in lisp is explicitly defined with parentheses (). Where as something like a static variable (or pretty much any variable that's defined in Algol like languages) has implicit scoping, it's implied that it shares the same scope as the scope it's defined in (or some other implication like C#'s public). I'll have to find a better way to word it because you're right. Thank you for the discussion.

If Theranos is doomed in the end, does this paint Walgreens in a poor light for not properly vetting them in the first place? Or can no one really blame Walgreens for their actions up to now? I know their CFO was replaced in 2014 (he seems to be an easy scapegoat for this).

I think the real issue is that whether they are psychologists or psychiatrists, there seems to be no accountability in the field (outside of extremes like malpractice) in terms of whether or not they actually provide any value to the patient. If someone goes to a psychologist for 20 years and at the end of it they're still just as bad as when they started, there's no, "I'd like my money back from the last 20 years". Sometimes a professional might not know if they can help, but even if it becomes obvious to them that this is someone they can't help, they don't say, "I'm unable to help you. Stop being a customer." They just continue down the path. This isn't to say that most mental health professionals are taking people's money without actually doing anything (I have no idea if that's the case), but rather it's difficult for the patient to know if they are actually getting any help, it is difficult for the patient to hold the person accountable if they don't get the help they expected, and it is difficult for the patient to even know if they're right or wrong about the matter (since they are not the expert). This makes it easy for the patient to doubt and blame the mental health professional or the entire field, there's just so much grey area.

Sorry for your losses.

It's not okay to lie about mental health. This is a dangerous post.

If you are someone who read that post and are about to take what was said as fact at least google the statement that is the most obviously fake: "Did you know that psychologists know how to cure insomnia in a single session?" and in doing so remember the word that was chosen: cure. -------------------------------------------

Red flag: (you don't need help you can help yourself)

> The biggest hurdle to overcome is the idea that there exists a magic barrier where your disorder goes from being something that you can cure yourself to something you need a professional for. The barrier is an illusion.

-------------------------------------------

To blatantly dangerous and false statements:

> You always have the power to change your mood for the better.

From another one of this user's posts:

> In the last 50 years clinical psychologists have figured out effective psychological treatments for almost all mental health problems and manualized them so a professional can know or easily look up the best way to treat a disorder.

and:

> I regularly meet patients who are very depressed when we first meet who manage to overcome their depression in a couple of weeks.

Which would be like 2 appointments?

I would place serious doubt on anything this person claims.

comparing periods of months and years

My experiences with this are mostly not tech related. It seems to come up everywhere. I'm glad that you found something that worked for you.

I completely concede to that. I, admittedly, was just reaching for the most obvious example of people who exercise.

Not to start a flame war with you, but in the hope that maybe I can make this panacea a little less popular I want to get something off my chest. Every time someone has a problem with mental health, whether it's depression, anxiety, drug withdrawal, etc the answer from the audience is always exercise.

I'm only one data point, but I've exercised more days of my life than not and have observed absolutely no difference in mental health between the me that exercises and the me that doesn't.

What about athletes: students-athletes, NBA players, olympians. Do they show a significantly lower rate of mental health issues?

This argument has been floating around in my head for a while. The reason I think this suggestion is harmful is because it is the most vocal and popular, and yet excludes anyone who already exercises.

Who is recommending this? My hypothesis is people who only exercise every once in a while and so they get a huge hit of endorphins and think, "Man if I did this every day I would feel great." Maybe, some people with mental health issues use exercise as an escape and are really recommending it for its temporary relief. But I'm just in denial about the majority of people being people who didn't exercise, were miserable/anxious/whatever, started exercising and now they're happy/normal/perfect.

Again, I'm not trying to start any arguments here. For those of you who have been saved by exercise, I'm envious. I would really just like to see more answers than this instead of seeing it as the go to answer. It makes the assumption that people who have mental health issues don't exercise.

I did not know C had static variables at the function level (thank you for pointing this out), but static variables are not the same thing as what I'm thinking of when I say "explicit scoping". It would basically be like writing curly braces for variable declarations the same way one does with function definitions. Because lisp has this it's trivial to extend the scope of the variable to cover multiple functions:

    (let ((x))
      (defun func1 ())
      (defun func2 ()))

This is what I mean when I say explicit scoping. And it means that the reader/debugger/maintainer knows that this variable only exists for these functions. A static variable's scope is implied by the scope of whatever it's defined in (not sure if that's limited to functions in C), in this case X exists outside of C and has it's own scope, not just it's own extent.

I haven't programmed in C, but my view comes from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM1iUe6IofM&feature=youtu.be...

What would be the C equivalent of:

    (let ((last-response))
      (defun get-response ()
        (print last-response)
        (setf last-response (read)))) 
    
    (print (get-response))
    (print (get-response))

Notice that no other function can use last-response. It only exists for get-response, but it exists outside the scope of get-response. Does C have this?

Google says 45% of bottled water is just tap water. I will never understand this phenomena.

A really excellent piece. Having no experience whatsoever with Erlang, I feel like I have a very strong idea of its purpose and approach after reading this. Not only that, but it's convinced me that a system for prioritizing and restarting pieces of code is essential to all projects. It seems dumb to not have a system like this. Thank you for taking the time to write this up.

NOW WATCH: These are the only vitamins you should be taking — and the ones you should skip

When I look at some of the fundamental differences between lisp and the mainstream languages (like everything-as-expressions and explicit scoping of variables and functions), I realize that Lisp is centuries ahead of its time. How long is it going to take mainstream languages to implement explicit scoping like let and flet? 75 years after lisp was born? How long for everything-as-expressions (which gives code a logical structure and eliminates the need for throwaway variables)? 100 years? 200 years? Will we even have programming languages by then?

I explained this in another post about paypal. Basically, paypal has a monopoly on international transactions for Americans. I ended up switching to Bitcoin, but not everyone is able to do that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10911837

God I love that logo: https://github.com/bevacqua/dragula/raw/master/resources/log...

Programming languages are some of the shittiest languages ever created. Mathematics is probably the best language ever created. The more programming can be like math, the better.

How does privately funded research compare to publicly funded research in terms of results (however you want to measure them)?

What is the thing that allowed Uber to exist in the first place?

Cheesy? How about nonsensical and a sick laugh at their ignorant customers?

looks like a toilet seat to me

You make a fair point. In fact, if we had even stronger software patents, facebook would have had to wait 20 years after the invention of myspace. A world with no facebook? Valhalla? It seems I need to rethink my position.

Or how about we hard delete all software patents since they are absolutely ridiculous? Goodbye $600mil flow charts.