dbpatterson

The "blues" created the legislation & forced the workers to accept a shitty contract with no sick days. They could easily have refused to vote for it and let the strike happen w/o real sick days.

Umm, if everything was built around the idea that tweets were immutable, yeah I could imagine it's quite a bit of work to change things. Immutable and mutable data can be treated _very_ differently in systems bigger than the little toys you make for fun.

I think this still, somewhat, misses the point.

Sure, Racket has facilities to make implementing languages easier (that's the whole point), but that simply makes it _easier_ to implement BSL, etc. I could certainly, with more effort, implement BSL in Java or in any other language: the language that students are using really has nothing to do with the _host_ language. Things are somewhat confused by DrRacket (or, made simpler, depending on your perspective); the IDE is somewhat mixed up with everything else, but again, this functionality can and does exist in other editors: I could implement a mode for my BSL implemented in Java in, say, VS Code, with comparable features to DrRacket.

Or, to take a completely different tack, implement the IDE via the web a la WeScheme or, if you want an actual concrete example of something that isn't Racket hosted, Pyret.

So... unless Grinnell does things very differently, the author did not learn Racket, they learned (Beginning/Intermediate/Advanced) Student Language, and that's the point.

Racket is a complicated language, designed primarily in order to support the easy creation of other languages: it would be as bad a choice (perhaps worse) for a first language as any other. All of the simplicity, focusing on learning to program, programming structurally based on data, that comes out of HtDP, is enabled by the restricted language.

It's too bad that this naming confusion persists, as I think it hurts the effort to focus on teaching _programming_ in intro classes, vs. teaching X language (I don't want to teach people Racket any more than I want to teach them Python or Java. They can learn those on their own -- they'll probably learn at least a half dozen other languages over their career, all on their own, if they stick with it). This curriculum is about figuring out how to most effectively teach people to program: the language was created, after the fact, to support that.

At least for me, the main reason for the remarkable to exist is reading scientific papers -- not having to print them out (and keep track of them) is a great benefit, but sometimes color is an important part of them. As a device for _writing_, I don't miss color at all, but for reading / annotating, it would make a big difference.

Ad-free doesn't necessarily mean they aren't tracking you, right? Viewership info is _still_ valuable, even if it's not being used right on the device.

Extending your point, 4% more would go down to just under 3:42.... which has not yet happened, over a half century later.

There are (at least) several goals:

1. persistence, which obviously is hurt by them running out of money. Dropbox links apparently die eventually, static websites bitrot, etc. Things put on arxiv can be trusted enough to put links to them in papers, if needed.

2. Discoverability. Pre-print archives send out digests (usually people subscribe to particular areas). It's a low-effort way to distribute them. Related, by having things semi-centralized, it's easier to discover papers (they get indexed by google scholar, for example...).

Maybe other benefits? Not sure.

Have you actually done any proofs in one of these systems? (or used one?)

Natural numbers are used because of the induction principle you get: it's very useful, and generally straightforward to use in lots of contexts (e.g., just the other day I had students proving the correctness of multiplication implemented as iterated addition; the multiplication is over integers, but the inner loop is after you've ensured what you are iterating is non-negative, since you decrement each iteration, and _proving_ it is much more straightforward if you interpret the loop counter as a natural number).

And your point about syntax is also baffling: Coq will display natural numbers as decimal literals, not "S(S(S...".

The fact that this was on your list of "improvements" rather than being a minimal requirement before being willing to launch, sell, etc, is pretty damning on it's own. No need to get misty-eyed.

That the task description is only posted at the start of the competition?

Link to the "full privacy policy" 404s, which is not a good thing, given you are asking people to enter their full names, addresses, CC numbers.

Not sure about actually having protected collective bargaining rights (i.e., in the US subject to the NLRA), but pooling resources to have staff attorneys, etc -- certainly possible. e.g., the IWW tries to do this, organizing "unorganizable" workforces (most recently, for freelance journalists https://freelancejournalistsunion.org/)

you ignored "and mark every sensitive field with a special value", which is the key part. As long as all sensitive data has been essentially zero'd out (for some value of zero), all is fine.

I believe in the past you had to open some kind of support request, as there wasn't an "automated" way to do it (and there was maybe still some kind of waiting period after having deactivated the account). It's certainly been made easier (they've gotten a lot of flack over the years oven this...)

Pattern matching on GADTs will get you there, I believe.

It's amazing that someone can go through this and come to the conclusion, at the end, that the solution is that this is a business opportunity that would make a lot of money if someone could just make it more efficient. Trying to make money off of healthcare is exactly how we have gotten the absolute mess that is the American medical system. All the incredibly complex rules exist so that health insurance companies can elect _not_ to pay for things that were deemed necessary by a medical professional. If insurance companies would be willing to pay for the services that were needed, there would be no 1600 page rule books. Of course, a system that actually paid for the care that people needed wouldn't be so obscenely profitable for them, and so they lobby massively against it.

Or, to summarize, we need to take some of the money from the people who are currently extracting it from everyone else...

Money, and wealth, is not owned, it is collectively created. Without collective enforcement of monetary value, currency is useless. Without collective enforcment of property laws, property rights don't exist. The only non-collective value that exists is individual power, usually via violence. Unless you want to live in a society run by armed militias (see, for example, various failed states), you depend on collective enforcement. Taxes are not a matter of taking _back_, they are fees for services rendered for that collective enforcement. Your wealth would not exist without society. How much society charges to allow you to have that wealth is what we, as a society, need to decide.

In the simplest case, a macro system gives rise to two-phase evaluation - first, there is code that runs at macro expansion time, that produces, as its result, new syntax, and second, that resulting code runs. But having just two phases is (needlessly) restrictive, because you might want macros that generate other macros (and so the macro-generating macros would need to run at an earlier phase than the generated ones).

The PDF is interesting, but reports no actual data from GA... Seems like that would be relevant, if they are trying to push for more transparency!

The article doesn't mention Vasigel

Did you read the article? About half of it is specifically dedicated to Vasalgel.

You could give them 15 days free use, and only charge it after that... there is a risk that the charge doesn't go through (in which case you've given a couple weeks free service - big deal), but otherwise, you've just made it much less useful for card testing (to the point that they certainly won't use your site).

To give him credit, the thing that is appealing about it is that there is very little to it that's not javascript. So you can very easily expect to figure out everything you need to know about it in a day or two, vs however long it take to familiarize yourself with one of these massive new frameworks.

So where did their wealth come from? Most likely, they made it through 'business' - which usually means, through benefiting from the work of other, significantly less paid workers. The fact that our economic and political system permits this (and to the extent that it does) is not some natural phenomenon.

You might get better optimizations if you make it tail recursive (LLVM probably gets some of these). ie:

    fn sum_tail(v : i64, l: &[i64]) -> i64 {
        match l {
            [] => v,
            [x, xs..] => sum(v + x, xs)
        }
    }

I think the author doesn't give enough credit to things that OCaml has that Haskell doesn't have: a powerful module system (ie, functors), polymorphic variants/subtyping, etc.

Camlistore seems relevant - it's whole intention is to last (at least) 100 years, primarily by making the data format simple and making data migration (ie, moving between providers, between hard disks, etc) a common thing. https://camlistore.org/

I actually find that _worse_ than what the parent described. If I hit Win+1, I want to see the browser provided that it's open. I don't want the state of the system prior to hitting that to have any effect on it. If I accidentally hit Win+1 twice, it seems that I would end up minimizing the browser. At least for me, the primary value that tiling window managers provide (even though it has little to do with tiling!) is idempotency.

This is also true in Ubuntu's Unity, but after trying to use it, a minor issue drove my crazy: if you switch to one that isn't open it will open the application. So if I accidentally Super-4'd (which I didn't think I did, but after trying to use Unity for a while, I'd do it at least several times a day), it would start whatever the 4th application was. And then you have to deal with it showing up a fraction of a second later. I don't want switching and starting applications to be the same action, because switching should _always_ be extremely fast. If there was a way to make it only switch if it was open, then this would be a viable option for at least my workflow.

Obviously it's personal, but the main issue I've always had with Alt-Tab is that as soon as you have more than 2 windows, getting to a specific application is now something you have to think about (or hit key, look, possibly hit key again). Since I'm often doing web development, I usually have a terminal open, an editor, and a web browser. Except for terminals, I pretty much always have everything full screen - the benefit is that Super-1 gets me to terminal(s), Super-2 gets me to my editor, and Super-3 gets me to the browser.