Defletter

Ditto, but also the so-called "Free Speech Bill" advocated by the publisher which explicitly attempts to import America-style free speech into the country as law. Thankfully, it doesn't seem to be something Parliament is entertaining, at least not yet.

While I sympathise with the sentiments here, it's just not true, or at least is a gross exaggeration. While IANAL, nor have I read every jurisdiction's laws, I'm fairly certain we have yet to see someone prosecuted for sharing a Netflix password. This place would've been inundated with posts about it.

Also, the EU and other jurisdictions have already passed laws and regulations about dark patterns, and continue to do so. iirc, there are jurisdictions considering laws regarding content algorithms. There are laws regarding certain addictive patterns (remember the whole debacle regarding micro-transactions targeted towards children?). None of this is to say that these things don't still happen, but rather to refute the notion that these patterns are merely frowned upon.

I'm pretty convinced the only reason people care is because it's been memeified, and to be fair, the running gag of someone chugging a bottle of water before giving a lacklustre response to an easy question is pretty funny. But this sudden care for water consumption despite the public's general apathy towards it with regards to literally everything else (mining, livestock, textiles, energy generation, Coca Cola, etc), just seems manufactured.

Different person here, it's probably because they defensively reject anything that forces anyone to do anything, or would increase prices outside of market forces. Every argument that's used against this kind of legislation was also used against putting airbrakes on trains. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

> stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

What an odd definition, where did you get it from? Bigotry is being unreasonably intolerant. Your definition would cast intolerance of naziism as bigotry (Godwin's Law, yes, I know). But this doesn't surprise me since you don't seem to understand what "goodbye" means either. It's a shame this site has no equivalent to a block feature.

If you say so. You seem desperate to cast me as a bigot to explain away my objections. Since we're assuming things about each other's character now, I'm just going to assume you follow this religion and feel attacked by my objection to it being officially adopted by a database library. God forbid, right? Oh well, I've endured a lot worse from you people. Goodbye.

When I wrote my example, I was more thinking of database and table names, the schema itself, rather than cell content. There are already various limitations on such things, usually in the form of reserved prefixes. It doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that a piece of software that officially affiliates itself with a particular religion might infuse that religion within itself. In fact, I find it suspicious that you seem to disregard this possibility entirely. Most explicitly religious software does this.

Instead, you attempt this weird switcheroo where I'm a bigot? Let's recap: a piece of software has officially affiliated itself with a religion that has made no secret of thinking we're evil and persecuting us for it for multiple millennia. I state that this is off putting and wish to switch to alternative software in my own projects. And you call me a bigot for it. Great job, Sherlock.

I think you have vastly mistaken what I'm saying. You seem to have leapt from me merely switching away using SQLite in my own projects, to me attempting to purge SQLite from every machine and piece of software I own or something? How odd.

Even with their strange choice to give a SQL database engine an official religion, I'm under no illusion that they'd turn it into actual malware. The example concern I gave was about queries failing, not it rm-rfing my computer. Sheesh.

I'd rather just not use the thing than maintain a fork just to monitor for the influence of its official religion in its code.

Hardly. It may be annoying for commercial users to require a checkboxy code of conduct from the software they choose to use, but taking that opportunity to shove religion down people's throats is very strange behaviour. It also makes me suspicious of SQLite: if they're that brazen, do I need to look out for potential implementations of these rules within the code? Will certain words, like "gay", cause queries to fail? I don't think so and I hope it never will. But this is a SQL database engine and they chose to publicly affiliate it with religion. That's concerning.

I've been considering switching to H2 for a while now to avoid depending on a fat-jar full of binaries. This nonsense has persuaded me to make that switch.

Uhhh, wasn't April 1st like a month and a half ago?

EDIT: Nevermind. Seems like this nonsense has been on their website since at least October 2018 (https://web.archive.org/web/20181024184950/https://sqlite.or...). How off putting.

Exactly

Uhh, to be fair, if the goal was only to recreate git from 2005, it probably wouldn't cost $17M. I'd hazard a guess that they're recreating modern git and the emergent stuff like issues, PRs, projects, etc. I've also heard that the core devs for git are essentially paid a salary to maintain git.

It's comments like this that remind me of the conciseness-at-all-costs dogma: that people genuinely treat indentation as some kind of eldritch horror; that they would genuinely prefer "impl X" becoming "impl Y for X" (thus making it difficult to parse at a glance because the target keeps shifting places) over it. It's bewildering.

These don't seem like insurmountable challenges though. Unnamed impl blocks could work entirely within requirements. There could also be a lint to warn about any fields that are below trait definitions.

    struct Example {
        number: i32,
    }

    impl Example {
        fn boo() {
            println!("boo! Example::boo() was called!");
        }
    }

    trait Thingy {
        fn do_thingy(&self);
    }

    impl Thingy for Example {
        fn do_thingy(&self) {
            println!("doing a thing! also, number is {}!", self.number);
        }
    }

This could be expressed as:

    struct Example {
        number: i32,

        impl {
            fn boo() {
                println!("boo! Example::boo() was called!");
            }
        }

        impl Thingy {
            fn do_thingy(&self) {
                println!("doing a thing! also, number is {}!", self.number);
            }
        }
    }

    trait Thingy {
        fn do_thingy(&self);
    }

Keeping related things together is just infinitely more readable, in my opinion. In fact, the confusing nature of "impl <struct>" becoming "impl <trait> for <struct>" is obviated by internal impl blocks. Keeping them separate just seems so artificial, if not downright dogmatic.

Something that I don't understand about Rust, or these rustylangs, is the insistence of separating structs and methods. Don't get me wrong, I like named-impl blocks, but why are they the only option? Why can't I put an unnamed-impl block inside the struct? Or better yet just define methods on the struct? What's the point of this and why do these rustylangs never seem to change this?

It's one of those stark reminders that there's no such thing as up or down in space, and something that disabuses me of the notion that I can truly comprehend "the enemy gate is down".

Contracts are a good idea, but I find the implementation of them to be clunky. I'd much rather contracts be part of the type system than as function signatures. Using the example in your earlier link, instead of defining day's 1..31 range within the Date-struct invariant, you'd instead declare a "day" type that's an int whose value cannot exceed 31 or be less than 1. This would be checked and enforced anytime a variable of the type is [re]assigned, set as a field, or passed-in as a parameter.

"People" doesn't include me then. I had no idea that D had this feature for quite some time, despite using it fairly often in Zig, because when considering what the equivalent would be to search for, my brain somehow didn't make the leap to the keyword that represents literally nothing. Or as your Google search result says, "representing a state of absolute vacancy or lack." A less inappropriate use of "= void;" would be to zero-out something. I honestly find D's continual misuse of keywords like this to be really off putting and a contributing factor as to why I've stopped using it.

But then why did you add your contract system to D? You implemented your contract system in the "early 90's", and D was released in 2001, so that's near a decade of "nobody wanted it". So then why add them as a core language feature of a new programming language if no one wanted it? Why is it still a core language feature? And why object to C++ finally adding contracts. I just don't get what you're even arguing here.

It should copy Zig's '= undefined;' instead of D's '= void;' The latter is very confusing: why have a keyword that means nothing, but also anything? This is a pretty common flaw within D, see also: static.

Yup, I keep mine enabled at all times. Anytime I've tried selectively disabling them, I get burnt with increasingly intrusive ads. I might be convinced to enable some kind of "ethical ads" filter that only permits ads are known to be unobtrusive and not track, but then you need to trust that whoever maintains that list wont succumb to incentives.

Would you be willing to give an example of this?

> it takes centuries to completely override them.

To completely override them? Sure, but that's an odd criterion since one of the US's biggest issues is the unequal protection of rights. I have never seen a society so rhetorically obsessed with individual rights and freedoms, and yet so submissive to authoritarianism that failure to "just comply" is enough to justify summary execution in the streets (eg: Alex Pretti and Renée Good).

Again, this post is about Canada attempting to pass a bill to facilitate mass surveillance, which "freediddy" (yikes name btw) responded to by expounding upon the loftiness of American constitutional rights, as if America is not one of the most extreme mass surveillance states. It's as if Canada's attempt to pass the bill is more offensive than the mass surveillance itself, ie, it's just virtue theatre.

Except that's not really true, is it? It may be the flavour-text of US tradition that the government is protecting your rights rather than bestowing them, but the outcome is the same. Nor is the US government particularly fastidious about protecting them: one need only ask the average person of colour whether they feel equally protected under the law.

It is your Declaration of Independence that recognises inalienable rights endowed by one's creator, not the Constitution, and is thus legally unenforceable. We know this because none of the rights enshrined in the Constitution are actually inalienable. For example: the First Amendment says that Congress can make no law prohibiting the right to peacefully assemble... but then how does federal incarceration work? The US has one of the largest mass-surveillance apparatuses in the world despite the Fourth Amendment. The President has also attempted to end birthright citizenship via decree, something which your Supreme Court is currently entertaining instead of immediately overturning as patently unconstitutional.

There's a common refrain that rights do not exist without remedies. Whether rights are given by one's deity or by one's government is immaterial: if you cannot remedy a violation of a right, that right does not exist. While I can certainly agree that certain systems do not entrench rights as much as they should (here in the UK, all our rights persist at the whims of a simple majority), words on a page matter less than access to remedies.

Have to wonder whether Jordan Peterson will incite as much of a panic about this as he did with C-16.

Sure, just be aware of what you're up against: if religion teaches us anything it's that even concerted, systematic efforts over millennia to conquer human nature (eg: libido) still fail. But if you want to give it a go, by all means: one can only imagine Sisyphus happy.

Oh that's just human nature: there's a reason why trashy tabloids continue to exist despite how public sentiment seems to universally agree that they're awful spreaders of rumour and insecurity. More people are Skankhunt42 than we'd like to admit.

One problem is that such information can be useful for non surveillance purposes, for example: how they knew certain roads were congested before GPS was the mobile networks. I personally do not see anything nefarious about this, nor would I necessarily wish to see this kind of information as uncollectable. Such things are different from tracking specific individuals, yes, but it's not that different. It then becomes a matter of what, how much, and for what purposes the information can be collected, which can be somewhat moot since the government in all likelihood will give themselves an opt out anyway.

None of this is to say that we shouldn't try, or that it's futile, but rather that it's a daunting task: the only way to really defeat this is to not only regulate private entities but also the government itself. And the only way to do that is to make such surveillance political suicide. And the only way to do that is to get the people to care about privacy. Here in the UK, the public has more or less come to accept CCTV cameras being everywhere, with the government now introducing AI face-scanning cameras, which has not been met with much public resistance. And so I do have to echo what @everdrive said: "We've done this to ourselves". Whether it's about convenience or apathy or whatever, we've had the means to object to this and we haven't.

Fun fact, generalisations can still exist even if they don't 100% apply to literally everybody.