1,391 karma · joined January 23, 2014
> "compilerOptions": { "strict": true }
But given the huge number of other options I worry that like GCC's '-Wall', that doesn't actually give you the strongest possible type checking. Anyone know about that? My aim with Typescript is to turn JS into OCaml.
Yes, content injection is bad, but the chance of it happening multiplied by the damage it could cause to your users is probably less than the the effort required to shift a static blog site to HTTPS. (Do not underestimate the leap in difficulty from copy-pasting from an Nginx tutorial to understanding how Let's Encrypt works).
[1] https://www.nspw.org/2009/proceedings/2009/nspw2009-herley.p...
[1] https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/nomicon/commits/master
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence
It wasn't always like this.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
"It doesn't work like that"?
Good project?? Sounds absolutely pie-in-the-sky. Another ridiculous idea that raised an insane amount of money from extremely naive investors. In other words, just another ICO.
The key argument is
With dep, it’s usually easy to point to failures - they’re explicit, verbose (and, currently, often difficult to understand, and printed out at the end of a dep ensure run.
The primary failure mode in vgo, however, is silent false positives - a vgo {get,test,run,build} command changes your dependency graph, and exits 0. Maybe everything’s fine, maybe it isn’t, but it’s incumbent upon you to take additional steps to understand that your build is broken.
I haven't been following this debate very closely, and this post doesn't make it clear - have these points been addressed? Is there still room to maneuver, or is the design mostly settled now? I know the post states that any design flaws will be fixed, but it sounds very much like the more typical lock-file + solver solution has been definitively decided against.
In comparison to rocket, actix-web does not use codegen tricks so is not as ergonomic or as safe - e.g. it cannot statically check that the path variables that you ask for actually exist on the route - but these are things that a simple test suite easily picks up (incidentally actix-web has a nice built-in test server).
Also I was a little concerned that rocket development has stalled somewhat. 26 PRs waiting at time of writing. As I recall the maintainer is teaching a Rust class as Stanford so he's most likely just very busy.
Whether it is an attempt to "reclaim" the word or not, that subreddit's usage of "neoliberal" bears little relation it's usage as defined in books such as David Harvey's 'A Brief History of Neoliberalism', where it is most commonly associated with privatization, financialisation, tax cuts, the retrenchment of social welfare and rapid growth in inequality.
Critically, the neoliberal state is not 'smaller', it just prefers deficit spending to tax and prefers to funnel money to private enterprises and the military-industrial complex rather than spend it on it's citizens.
In contrast, /r/neoliberal seems to use the word to mean some sort of libertarianism-lite?
https://people.gnome.org/~federico/blog/docs/fmq-porting-c-t...
"Rust revived my interest in maintainership. It is very empowering to finally have a good language that I can use at the level of the stack where I work."
Well, is the point of Ethereum to make some cash at the expense of later investors (basically a Ponzi scheme), or does the platform have some intrinsic value? Point is, the platform itself can be duplicated at little cost (it's an open source project after all, just fork it), so the cost to the (new) user should be low (or more importantly, stable), even if the value proposition is high.
This logic leads me to conclude that almost all the value of Ether is purely speculative and could disappear at any time.
But the number of Ether is fixed at 100,000,000ish. Which means that if the platform is successful, the coin will increase in value indefinitely. But I don't see why those who 'miss out' on the presale etc. (think banks, governments) would choose to hop on board at a later date - essentially gifting money to early adopters - when they'd be better off simply creating a new coin (or indeed forking Ethereum and awarding themselves more Ether). It all just seems very unstable, game-theory-ish situation.
Go was the first compiled language I learned coming from Python and scientific computing. And I felt the same way and was so delighted to write fast native multithreaded code without ceremony.
But then I learned some other languages that have elegant and powerful type systems (namely, Rust, OCaml and Haskell) and now I'm somewhat disgusted at my former self. Go could have been great, but it ain't. It's a blub language if ever there was one.
I know my opinion on these things doesn't matter. But I feel resentful of Go, I feel like I was duped.
The BBC did a wonderfully subversive 3-part documentary a few years ago called "The foods that make billions", which investigates in some depth the way people's tastes have been shaped to accept anything the food industry comes up with (no matter how disgusting in concept). Well worth tracking down on YouTube or whatever (particularly the episode about yoghurt, which I found grimly hilarious).
Why would anyone buy bottled water when it comes practically free from the tap? Why would anyone buy bread that has had all the tasty goodness removed ('white bread')? Why would anyone buy branded toothpaste when the chemically-identical supermarket version is half the price? Why would anyone want roasted grain coated in sugar as the first thing you eat each day? Would anyone buy sugary water (a.k.a. pop) if they knew just how bad sugar is for them? Why would anyone want hydrogenated vegetable oil instead of butter?
Unilever can go hang.
Or you sort-of-know-but-have-half-forgotten most of it and this is a nice refresher with a few interesting new bits thrown in?
Second - from what I can tell, Wallaroo Labs are now one of the main contributors to Ponylang. How are your experiences from writing Wallaroo affecting language design and direction?
I also disagree that there are no victims. Money and the lack thereof has profound effects on people's lives. People get depressed, get divorced, commit crimes and commit suicide due to the inscrutable flow of capital into and out of their lives. There are victims, somewhere. We just don't know who they are.
If there is any way in which a function containing an `unsafe` block may be used unsafely (specifically, violating memory-safety), then that function must also be marked as unsafe.
Shouldn’t the CEO go to jail? That might make them behave themselves, and possibly go some way towards justifying their astronomical salaries.
But no one would get rich quick, so it would probably never take off in the first place.
MS have played their hand very astutely and have managed to capture a large fraction of the enormous gap between cost-to-producer and value-to-user. Keeping things that way is worth $100bn market cap to them, and challenging them is worth relative peanuts to anyone else. Of course they're going to win every time.
Our best hope is that someone like Google pours money into a fully-compatible fully-featured desktop replacement out of sheer spite.
Office, in particular, brings in something like $25bn/year revenue with presumably very healthy margins. For a product that has hardly changed in 20 years. It's a good product, sure. But a clean-room reimplementation of the bits that people actually care about surely couldn't cost more than $1bn.
The power of monopoly capitalism.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/03/oxford-uni...
Interesting tidbit! So all the times I've furiously cursed at my gameboy because I swear the 'I' is by far the rarest tetrimino and it hasn't given me one for at least 20 turns... was just classic cognitive bias.
Maybe you think that is the same thing as enjoying yourself as you wish. But the OP argues that just because something exploits our psychological biases, does not mean it is good for us in any deeper or longer-term sense.
e.g. plenty of evidence that Facebook is actively harmful for it's users.