zimablue

Yeah it ends when you make a statement about someone that accuses them of a crime or otherwise libels them, in the UK at least. If someone has committed a crime, we have courts. We've been doing this for centuries.

That's true and the nature of language is such that there are constantly evolving dog whistles and methods of expression, but dog whistles aren't directed harrassment so I would basically allow them. Feel free not to vote for a dog whistling politician but I don't think one should not employ/fire/cancel someone for dog whistling that they believe some unfashionable or objectionable view.

It's not moving the goal posts, you seem to be creating a false dichotomy between: "support free speech" -> must support lack of reprisals for all free speech, including directed racial slurs "do not support free speech" -> must accept the current level and form of reprisals.

Where most people who say they support free speech are, is this statement: "support free speech without reprisals, excluding directed harrassment, with some level of acceptable reprisals in employment and socially, depending on the context, but at a much lower level than is currently the case, with less arbitrary application of mob justice and employer discrimination"

It's not catchy but nor is it inherently contradictory. It's what I imagine JK Rowling, Chomsky et al would say if you spoke to them about their letter.

I really think it would be useful if the anti-free-speech side of the debate stopped with this semantics and straw men about freedom from reprisals, monarchies, directed racism. I think that a person should be free to discuss eg. spaces for trans vs non-trans women and where to draw the line on sports etc, to what level the BLM is a useful movement, the relative weight of cultural vs economic vs discrimination in explaining different outcomes across ethicities and genders, positive discrimination, without being fired, cancelled or becoming unemployable. That's what most free speech people think, and all these semantic points, false definitions and straw men are kind of a waste of time

"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of that speech"

That's not true, it doesn't even really make sense. Freedom of anything is freedom from consequences for it. If I say I believe in freedom to have an abortion, noone would reasonably be said to agree if they said they also believe in freedom to have an abortion, and then immediate execution by the state afterwards.

Freedom of speech in the constitution is freedom from reprisal by the government

Freedom of speech as used idiomatically in speech generally means a certain level of freedom of reprisals from employers and society.

Directed racial slurs is a straw man, almost noone believes in absolutist freedom of speech when it comes to directed harrassment, they normally believe in freedom to discuss topics in the abstract.

It's not a monarchy if someone has the freedom to speak, that doesn't make them a king just a citizen.

I've noticed a trend with the woke side of the debate to get into like high-school level semantics - redefining words or misinterpreting statements in a nakedly disingenuous way - does anyone understand why this seems to be a trend?

This is not true, the spectator is a very right wing newspaper which our current pm used to edit (who was undeniably on the right wing of our the Tory party, which if you run the numbers on voting must put him in the rightmost 20% of the country).

It’s probably well written though, the irony is that the right wing press is often externally funded, not intrinsically profitable, and so has more cash in the bank to maintain high production quality, if completely destroying any pretense of neutrality.

Not to be divisive but I see a parallel here with what happened in the gaming industry. As it became more popular and socially acceptable, the quality of games went down, from the perspective of people who played games when they were unpopular. Eg. baldurs gate vs fortnite. Development is now fueled by an insatiable industry demand and fairly high salaries, and a lot of offshoring to desperate countries where it’s a way out. The taste of people who only write software in the context of cultural cache and a salary is always going to be different from that of people attracted to something for its own sake.

This conversation even reflects that- Too comment how many days before I can be productive for X company in JavaScript from scratch? That’s not a question I’m interested in but it’s been accepted as the most interesting question here.

One way of looking at it is training, you practise punching a bag and later you go box, you prove trivial results 5 ways then when you have a problem that isn't trivial you have 5 approaches in your locker.

Technology doesn't seem to be (in terms of what people can cheaply get hold of) there yet though? Amd as soon as it does get there, you'd arbitrage to third world guys not Western guys who want to live in Thaliand.

We're in a situation where we have offshore (Indian) tech hires and it's hard to coordinate on technical matters, even in a company where we have unlimited access to fancy VC rooms. When we flew them over for a bit everything was far easier. My boss thinks expensive digital whiteboards would make a big difference, but actually more than the money there's a political/social cost to buying big, visible things to sit in public sight in an office.

So why would you hire a Western guy for 3x the price and pay the exact same communication cost? Western and sitting in the same building or 3rd world country no other option seems to make sense.

Regardless of the validity of the argument this should be down-voted as old-school trolling where you totally derail a thread by politely starting a massive unrelated argument.

It's also missing a point that the original post and a lot of the internet seems to miss. Just enumerating an argument isn't enough to dismiss it, eg. "guard rails" "mansplaining", "squirrel". Just because an argument can be labelled doesn't mean it's invalid, the "guard rail" label could be applied to a nuanced argument about the cost of first order logic as a proof system jammed into all of your code (the original Hickey argument), which seems like it's worthy of not being arrogantly dismissed given the popularity of the language. Sometimes "mansplaining" is appropriate (a female might be wrong/ignorant and a male might seek to correct them), and sometimes "squirrel" is someone pointing out genuine hypocrisy (eg. the genuine hypocrisy of attacking Trumps corruption whilst ignoring blatant establishment corruption, not an argument you can totally dismiss).

Ironically this is logic itself getting meme-ified and losing it's semantic value so that the original concept (squirrel = (often) tu ququoe fallacy) is being applied incorrectly and stripped of nuance and unrerstanding.

You couldn't write it as a function, unless you pass in the 1+2 part to an outer function (macro) as either a list of arguments (1, math.add, 2) or a string (+you have an eval fn).

At that point you're emulating lisp without the elegance, and the first approach is only possible because functions are first class objects. If you were trying to rearrange an expression that had control flow or keywords in it (eg. Modify the behaviour of an if) then you would have to reify the "if" (change the original code so it had a class to represent the if not use the keyword). So you're kind of reinventing lisp by wrapping every part of your language as an object

I feel like what you're actually testing with this is "amongst the top percentile of programmers, what are the proclivities of people by choice of favourite language"

Because the implementations vary so much, that's the source of a lot of the LOC-difference. They effectively delivered more or less (if you count more stages as "more" which I would as it will make it easier to reason about/debug, and count a typesystem as "more", since it gives you more guarantees).

python - solves the problem brutally fast, some ugly shortcuts haskell - solves the problem quite slowly/delivered the most rust/c++ - intermediate scala - solved fast, took shortcuts ocaml - this is the one that surprised me I'd have expected it to be the shortest with python

HFT isn't relevant in this context, you need a better example of an active fund that you think reliably makes money by holding, or at least making big trades over longer time periods. HFTs don't normally move the market, they're effectively just frontrunning, you're thinking of something like CTAs/long-short quants

Because it's a false assumption that the "natural" distribution perfectly reflects the demographics of the population.

There's a much more rational way to try and account for that though- your parents income/wealth. That's what actually determines whether you are a leg up or a leg down, so if you're committed to this type of equality Index on that. Skin colour is a pretty insane proxy! There are poor white people too, and you can't assume they "deserve it because their family failed" it's insane. And your metaphor that it would somehow be justified to "disqualify" white people is bonkers. It's about as logically valid as an argument that we should "disqualify" black people- without slavery they wouldn't exist (butterfly effect), but assuming they did their median income would be that of eg. DRC. Slavery is a bad thing so we should "reverse" the effects right? We're NOT teams. I'm not on "team white" and anyone, regarding of race who thinks I'm on it is on the opposite team, because my actual team is my beliefs.

Effectively you're under their families power, being "discreet" and doling out money adhoc I wouldn't view as positive, it's them maintaining permanent control. I've long thought that the approach taken by my parents with far less money was pretty good- you get an allocation at 18, more if you're using to to go to uni. If there's any left over at 21 you get the remainder but after that there's nothing more and no expectation of inheritance. I'd try to follow something like this regardless of scale, if it's a couple of million maybe set up a fund that stops at 25

I think the tone of your post seems to imply that writing languages in some quasi-democratic (rather than oligarchic/dictatorial/elitist) way is or should be default. In fact, those assumptions are not the default (I can't think of any languages that are truly democratic, certainly most big ones aren't). Nor should it work like that imo, we don't design power plants by referendum. We put experts in a room, probably with a dictatorial decision maker and everyone else can whistle (or at least would really have to shout loud and be clearly right to be heard).

Also, if you're going for max language usage through design, how do you do that? By trying to perfect your design, so it's kind of an irrelevant motivator. Rich got a ton of clojure users (relative to his resources), he did that by having strong (reasoned) beliefs, not by opening the floor to a vote. Rich did /not/ say that he was only building Clojure only for his company, that's a very misleading statement that you've made.

Specifically on freedom of speech, the left and right oscillate tons based on who is feeling more authoritarian (the other axis). A small, very vocal portion of the identity-politics left is currently very authoritarian and anti freedom of speech but I think that's a specific current internet-influenced trend and not to do with a wider shift of the overton window on issues in general.

The real problem is way more fundamental than this, imo the real problem is the concept of school as a discriminator of aptitude rather than an educator (or indeed as both). When you're teaching someone, teach them. Test them as late as possible, in a way as close as possible to the task you're testing them for (programming assignment completed in-house instead of weird whiteboards, piece of writing completed in house instead of screening English degree).

Hopefully micro-credentialling/MOOCs/the fact that a lot of good careers are slowly turning into software (which is one of the easiest things to objectively test) eventually kill this fake-meritocracy bullshit.

From the perspective above, this is lipstick on a pig.

I disagree massively with this, to me Jupyter is a repl+ development environment + rapid prototyping in ETL/visualisation. There's no rule that they have to be used for exposition, or any writing at all. I don't know why you think this is a rule, or what you'd use as an alternative data-repl.

[Spoiler alert, Hyperion series] That sounds totally lifted from the Hyperion series, but maybe the idea is earlier than that, does anyone have a proposed source for that idea that's earlier than 1989?

Thanks, so it's kind of specific CPU stuff and "advanced" peripherals. I get what people are talking about now.

I genuinely don't understand this Linux incompatibility thing, people always make the point and I never know what they're talking about. I've always just bought an arbitrary laptop, installed Ubuntu on it and it's just run. What hardware problems are you referring to?

This post seemed to use a lot of acronyms and technical words to say not much, are you just saying that humans have more than one camera and gyros, integrated well?

Inflation is normally shorthand for "basket of goods" inflation, which notoriously /does not/ include housing costs. That's how we've had "low inflation" whilst having a bubble in housing and equity, because these forms of wealth are excluded. Which works out because you can have a mostly silent concentration of wealth without people screaming about this big indicator.

worth mentioning the attr library in this context, which is I think the most popular implementation and inspiration for dataclasses (I think I read the reason it's not in core is to allow it to move faster). My interpretation of dataclasses in the stlib was to put a seal of approval on attr.

As someone who uses (but doesn't love, actually) Airflow. I think this might be a situation where lots of people are tempted to think that they're "scale". I disagree slightly with your use of "business level" to describe this.

I've seen quant hedge fund platforms(fairly intensive data engines compared to most businesses) using airflow, because when it comes down to it hundreds of DAGs is more likely than hundreds of thousands.

Couldn't you just compile cljs=>js=>wasm? cljs is mostly the same language right

Yeah it's absolutely an incel meme but do no means do I think that they invented it or that it's unique to them. I think almost all men have this feeling to some extent, I think it's a rare guy who is happy to know that every good looking guy in his office slept with his girlfriend casually. Proximity (time, location, social circle) is definitely an aggravating factor but it's all just a sliding scale. I like to think that I mostly don't care about a girl's past but it's definitely annoying on some level of the sliding scale.

There's a sliding scale from mail order brides all the way down to women slightly lower class than the male with something in the middle like travelling to a poor country to meet girls. The third thing is definitely effective and on the rise (and incels are obsessed with it).

If you accept the premises: free information leads to higher female promiscuity aimed at top % males

Lower % males will always be aware of this

At some point this leads to increased violence and conflict

There's no way to put any of this back into the bottle (how can you enforce cultural (or even enforced) monogamy given free information and anonymous encounters? It's harder than trying to prevent people doing drugs, incel fantasies aside.

The closest thing to a way out is to try and change the culture of sex as power and status and deconstruct the whole thing somehow? (As in all you change point 3, get low status guys to care less). It seems difficult though, it's beyond politically incorrect to say but I can't imagine guys ever being happy to know that they were a compromise choice by their girlfriend who had to really prove himself after 10 years of sleeping with men far more attractive than them that just had to swipe. Hard to see outside your own culture though, maybe that will just become accepted.