travisathougies

This is the problem with inflation. As high inflation numbers get broadcast to the people, people become more willing to spend money now on commodities that may not be available / affordable in the future. That causes profit margins to increase as people take into account future inflation, and thus eventually cause a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, indeed, there's always some portion of a saint (or something having touched a saint) in the altar, stemming from the early days of the Roman church when, during Roman persecutions, the church would hold Mass/Divine Liturgy over the bodies of martyrs in the catacombs.

However, most churches don't have full bodies anymore, for obvious reasons. However, when the altar is stripped (for example on Good Friday). If you were invited into the sanctuary... you would be able to see a stone, on which there is inscribed several crosses. Under each cross is a relic, set into the stone. The priest consecrates bread / wine over the stone.

In terms of provenance... you can't sell a relic, but most monasteries, shrines, the Vatican, or other places that have burial records, will provide relics upon request, if available. Orders keep careful details of their martyrs and saints. So for example, a Dominican parish will often ask a Dominican priory with burials of a Dominican saint for a relic. We have indeed even entered the modern age where some monasteries / priories / convents even let priests request relics online!

I'm not sure why it would be unexpected. Almost any Catholic cathedral of any import (even the new ones) bury people immediately underneath the floors. It's part of the planning of any church. It would have been even more common and less regulated in the times Notre Dame has seen.

Well, as this is under an actively used Catholic cathedral, and Catholics typically like to do our services on top of our saints, I imagine the clergy and the diocese has something to say as to how the bodies are treated.

Is it so unreasonable to believe that Hunter Biden, who grew up in Delaware and whose father has to live in delaware, since he has been the senator from delaware for almost fifty years, ended up with a laptop in need of repair in Delaware?

It doesn't really matter though, because in California, the state constitution explicitly states that privately owned spaces open to the public (so twitter) must guarantee freedom of expression. The case law is pretty absolute and settled in this regard. Most famously... shopping malls in California have to allow union protests within the malls (with only mild regulation, mainly around safety / opening hours). Thus, by the Supreme Law of the state of California, as a private company, Twitter is legally obligated to -- at least for California residents -- not restrict their legally protected speech. Twitter frequently does this to california residents, thus violating California law. If the law was applied equally, they would be fined and censured as the malls were who tried to union bust.

> Just embrace PowerShell.

Instead of learning a young, new language, I could just boot into Linux and used an established operating system?

I don't understand this mentality of 'Windows must be better'. PowerShell is alright, but as the article pointed out, the Windows terminal experience is terrible. Even the OG terminal interface on linux is better (supports copy paste with mouse for one thing).

> And that's exactly where you loose every average user when trying to convince them to switch from Windows to Linux. I work with Linux every day too but the command line elitism needs to stop.

I have made no argument that everyone needs to use the CLI. I like it, and it is a fair criticism of Windows to say that it makes things harder by not having it. That criticism rings true for me and many others. Some other people with different experiences probably think CLI is hard. That's fine. To each their own.

The comment I responded to accused the author of being disingenous. I pointed out that (1) technical users are still users and (2) there are things that if you're used to a unix shell are simply an absolute pain to do on windows.

> The way I see it, the issue here is that you don't know how to use Explorer features, but instead of looking it up and learning how to use it, you're pushing the narrative that somehow it's Explorer's fault for you not bothering to look up such solutions. It' not like you were born with the Linux command line in your head. You had to take the time to learn all those commands and practice. Same with Windows and MacOS and other OS. You need to re-learn certain mechanics whenever you switch OS and it's not the OS's fault you refuse to do that and choose to remain stuck wanting everything to work the Linux way.

Okay, now do any file with a number at the end?

> Windows support SMB protocol, it should just work ?

Not everything uses SMB? Windows compatibility for anything not Microsoft is sporadic.

If it's more complicated than 'move this one file from folder A to folder B' it gets very complicated very fast.

On linux, the 'normal' way to move files is using the terminal using 'mv'. On Windows, the terminal is available, but the main interface is the UI. It's easy to move one file. It's even easy to move several files 'next to' each other in the window. It's not easy to move files matching a particular name, or across multiple folders.

So usually what happens is I have to find (perhaps even purchase) a purpose-built utility to do exactly what I want. Or, sit there and move files. Like ctrl+click on them (that interface is terrible by the way, because one click makes the entire selection go away... who thought that up?) and then move them. What other way is there without delving into automation? Windows Explorer cannot even do the most basic selection of 'select all files with NNN in the name'. It's completely useless for anything but the most silly of operations.

Also, if you have to do actual work moving files between different filesystems or across network filesystems, it becomes even worse. You have to find something compatible with Windows, install it. It's probably some ad-containing shareware non-sense, so you pay for the license so you don't get bombarded with ads, a browser toolbar, and whatever other nonsense the MSI decided to install. Then, after about 30 minutes of downloading, installing and endless clicking on the 'do you want to allow this software to do blah' (which I never really read and click by default), it may or may not work.

On linux, it's just mount.

I don't really get the complaints about linux being hard to use. Different sure. But if you're used to it; if you grew up with it, it's mind-numbingly easy.

> Linux on the other hand is just better for people who don't value their time as much and are happy to tinker with things at a very low level

You criticize the author for lacking self awareness, but then turn around and do the same.

Many linux users (myself included) do not spend time 'tinkering'. I've had the same experience as the author. I've used linux almost exclusively since around 2000 and the few times I have to use windows, I'm completely stuck. It takes forever to get things done. Just helping my parents out with simple things like 'move these files', 'rename these photos', etc take hours and hours of work, whereas on linux it's like a minute.

> Linux is not really a viable alternative for most mainstream non technical users.

Perhaps that's true, but technical users are ... still users.

> They're spinning a lot of plates, which is why it feels and looks the way it does to some extent.

That's great, and while it may excuse their poor operating system, it doesn't suddenly make it a great OS.

(1) I do have children, (2) your statements assume, without possibility of falsification, that such mental illness is not at all due to environmental factors. This unfalsifiable nature makes these statements religious in nature, so I'm not going to bother questioning or arguing with them.

I would imagine there's a U shaped curve. If you have too little and can't feed yourself / meet basic needs, I imagine suicide is a problem. If you have too much and can't spend time with your kids because you're working too much (mom being a hot shot lawyer and dad being a hotshot financier is not a 'normal' situation), then I imagine it's also a problem.

Both money and family time are necessary for kids to thrive. If you have one and not the other, it's going to be a problem.

Parents of a normal age (which these seem to be) are extremely unlikely to die from COVID. This is just fear mongering.

Exactly, I remember distinctly at age 16 thinking my life was going to be ruined because my parents wouldn't let me 'party' [1] during high school. Children have neither perspectitve nor sense, nor should they be expected to be. The truth is two years of little socialization and stimulation may be okay for mentally well adults, but it is criminal to impose that on children

[1] As in... my parents had a curfew and didn't let me drink..., so totally normal rules for a high schooler, but I felt that the world was ending and everything was so unfair.

It's sad but when I read about children who are 'precocious', I think either their parents are driving them too hard, or (because of the example of a 4th grade boy bringing a girl to a school event...) there's been some sexual / emotional abuse [1]. None of what is being described here is normal childhood behavior, which makes sense, since the family is not at all normal. Both parents are hotshot career-focused individuals. It begs the question if the kids ever had time to just be kids. As I've discovered over the years going from a 'work hard, play hard' youth to a more mellow adult, is that balance is the key, and most people today simply lack it, and these parents sure sound like it.

I mean... just reading about their life before the suicides already stressed me out.

EDIT: Also, the article spent very little time talking about the human impact of COVID lockdowns (it mentioned them, but did not dwell). Passages like this:

> I asked Angela if we could come by for a condolence call. She said yes, if we were vaccinated. Because vaccines were not yet available to children, she added, “Don’t bring George.” She paused, then explained, “It’s just—because of Agnes. She can’t get vaccinated yet, either. And she’s all I have left.” In the following weeks, Angela told her story over and over to any friend who asked, as though she could contain it through repetition. For Billy, even conversational boilerplate was a struggle.

Make me think the parents were a bit over the top with regards to covid lockdowns. Children not being able to see friends? Human companionship (physical presence) is a basic human need on par with food and water. No one's surprised when a child dies from lack of food. Lack of intimate friendship is the same.

EDIT 2:

> Trevor, the child of well-off, educated parents, had far better mental-health support than most American children, but was not saved by it

In my experience, it's better to come from a lower middle class family (so enough money to eat and have everything you need, but not too much), than to come from outright wealth. Money is not a solution to every problem, and too much money and luxury is the root cause of many mental illness.

[1] I wrote this comment before reading the article, but the article later goes on to talk about how we was abused. I don't want to say 'I told you so', but the signs were all there. It's interesting... the New Yorker doesn't even stop to question whether the rise in child suicide rates may be due to a rise in child sex abuse.

I think you should give the guy above the benefit of the doubt and restrict yourself to ST. IO and STM are different beasts, and still they're not imperative. The issue with IO and STM is global state. Mutation of global state can be done imperatively, as many imperative languages do. It can also be done functionally using monads to hide the affine types in a nice wrapper class in the absence of proper affine types or using proper affine type systems. Haskell choose the former. Other languages, like clean, choose the latter.

Same input -> same output is a nice property of referential integrity, which is a common thing we have in functional languages, but it is actually not due to the functional nature. Imperative languages can trivially be made to have this property by disallowing mutation of variables not in the immediate scope and restrict IO side effects (and maybe a few other straightforwards restrictions depending on the language in question).

With that out of the way. Same input -> same output holds for `orElse :: STM a -> STM a -> STM a`. However, you really have to expand out the types.

Here is the definition of STM (from https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.15.0.0/docs/GHC-C...):

> newtype STM = STM (State# RealWorld -> (# State# RealWorld, a #))

So, `orElse` should behave the same as a function with this type:

> (State# RealWorld -> (# State# RealWorld, a #)) -> (State# RealWorld -> (# State# RealWorld, a #)) -> State# RealWorld -> (# State# RealWorld, a #)

Now, the definition of 'same input -> same output' is clear. Assuming the global state (State# RealWorld) is the same, then the output state will be the same. Actually, this is not a property of all languages, as most languages allow arbitrary side effects in any code. Haskell does not. This is the key property that makes STM easy in Haskell and difficult in other languages. Note that the 'State# RealWorld' is always handled linearly, so there is no possible way the same 'value' could be passed in twice. Again, hiding this behind a monad enforces that this value is handled linearly, since Haskell doesn't have linear types (or at least didn't when STM, ST, and IO were written).

ST is not 'imperative'. The monadic interface can look imperative sure, but then you can also use Applicative and friends and that's back to being functional. Of course, I prefer to think of what you call 'imperative' programming as function composition where >>= is the reverse of the 'normal' composition operator. Indeed, sequential imperative commands and function composition are isomorphic.

> Even most autoimmune disorders have effective treatments now.

As someone who has autoimmune diseases, you must be getting your information from a source I'm not familiar with. Auto-immune disease are a long game of guess, test, and adjust.

For reals. I have alpha and beta thalassemia minor. It causes funny bloodwork (namely, it looks like I'm anemic). When I first got my results, doctors wanted me to see an oncologist and cardiologist and do all these tests and procedures. I thought it was odd because my bloodwork had always come back this way, so I researched a bunch of conditions that could cause the numbers I had (because my numbers weren't quite conducive to cancer or heart problems either). Anyway, I realized after making lots of lists and ruling things out that I likely had mild thallassemia, and when I finally got tested, it turned out I did.

No surprise there given my ethnic background (which frankly should have been a dead giveaway, because thalassemias are not uncommon at all), but I saved myself from being put on iron supplementation which is already potentially dangerous for a man, but especially dangerous to someone with thalassemia.

I'm confused about this comment. The biochem weapons lab in Ukraine are accusations Putin has made but has not substantiated, whereas the GoF research being done in Wuhan is known and there is ample evidence from many sources, including this Vanity Fair article. If you have a problem with the article's contents, please post your own comment on the main feed instead of making snark comments on mine. Thanks.

No this is not new information. Rand Paul has been on this for a long time, but has been censored from most platforms because of it.

You seem to be under the impression that there is some 'advanced technology' out there that will magically solve your problems that the US fails to have.

In my experience, many people have a quasi-religious belief in the capability of modern medicine to perform what would otherwise be called a miracle. This belief is typically held without any evidence whatsoever.

In reality, there are a plethora of conditions, some very common and serious, that medicine simply has no idea how to treat. The set of completely treatable / curable conditions is much much much smaller than the set of all possible diseases, yet people act as if it's the opposite. This is why things like 'evidence based' medicine is so dangerous -- we don't have evidence for the vast majority of impactful conditions, simply ignoring patients with these conditions is not a workable solution.

There's probably a huge demand for people with his business skillset honestly. If he finds the right niche (building tooling for COOS/CFOS), they'd probably prefer talking to someone who understands their domain and can translate it into code rather than talking to some 'geek' who knows mainly computers.

> Now you have a choice: Do you continue donating your time, servers, emotions and experience to making someone else money?

No. I'm very clear with demands on my time that either companies have to provide resources to implement features (and I'll charge a consulting fee to train devs) or pay me directly to implement them (and I'll name the cost). Actually, several companies have paid me, and my project is significantly smaller than homebrew (niche Haskell library).

> We have seen how much the internet can vilify people who refuse to do this kind of free work

I don't really care about being vilified online. Have had my fair share. I'm old enough to not give a second thought to online trolls.

> Change the license and yank the rug out from under people, or pass it on to someone else

Or... don't change the license. Stop giving updates, and put up a notice that says you are not actively working on project X but for a fee you will be happy to make updates.

> Like most blasé statements, this statement doesn't help anyone. Not least because that's exactly what Tea seems to be trying to help people to do. Whether they succeed or not, no idea - but I wouldn't be bashing the concept this early on.

I wish them every success, and I may end up using it myself. However, I don't like the accusations of unfairness being levied against open source users (among which I would also include myself) for using freely available code for free.

> I've heard horror stories about OSS devs getting hundreds of emails a day ripping into them for not working fast enough to fix an issue or implement a feature. It sounds like murder.

So... while I don't get 100s of e-mails a day, I do get a good amount per year demanding I implement a feature. I point out that my personal contact details are there (as well as my corporate entity) and that we can be contacted for custom commercial work.

The way I see it... OSS is my past-time. The moment there are deadlines you need to pony up

> tech giants accrued fortunes on the backs of people they’ve never thanked, paid or even met.

I have a few open-source libraries, and I figure that... since I give them away explicitly for free... there is no expectation of being paid. If one expects to be paid, one should sell their product.