alphaalpha101

As someone from NZ: we have an election in about 4 weeks, and this is a serious issue here. We know that this immigration-driven growth is not real growth.

The only people that should be affected by it are Sonos. They should sue Amazon for violating their service agreement to maintain Audible so it would continue to work.

'Compatible with service X' is a feature. If it stops being compatible with service X because service X changed their API, then you either need to fix it so it's compatible again, or refund to your customers.

If you want to announce you are compatible with service X as a feature, you should have an agreement of compatibility with service X.

>stuff like PCG

PCG is cryptographically secure, though. Or at least, it is as cryptographically secure as any other PRNG in the sense that nobody actually knows how to predict it, many have tried, nobody has succeeded, but nobody has proved it impossible.

>I'd have called that a PRNG, because to me there were only two main categories. Pseudo-random, where it's designed to be unpredictable, and actually random where it is based on an external hardware source of true random information.

PRNGs produce numbers that seem hard to predict. CSPRNGs product numbers that actually are hard to predict, assuming P != NP (kind of).

Programmers are not computer scientists, and computer science is no more equivalent to software engineering than physics is equivalent to civil engineering.

Programmers are also not, in general, software engineers.

It's not about getting 'caught up in titles' either, IMO. It's an important distinction. Computer science programmes get flack for not teaching practical software engineering skills, which is totally unreasonable. Just as we have physics programmes, we should have proper computer science programmes.

You are allowed to do a physics degree and offer physics courses without people going 'but how do I design bridges??'. Yet every computer science lecturer will tell you they've had people ask 'but what does this have to do with making websites??'.

So they've already released 'updates' that break the device and reduces its feature set, and you're okay with this?

Everything else is 'clearly' a service? On what basis? You buy a product, it has these features, you can do these things, that's the product.

Being able to play music on a 'smart speaker' from my phone isn't a service, it's just a feature of the product. If you sell a product with features that require you to host some servers somewhere publicly accessible on the internet, that doesn't make that product feature a service.

Don't like that? Don't include those features in your product. Design them better so you don't have to forever maintain these servers.

I'm pretty sure by definition IoT devices use the internet..

The EU as a whole is arguably much more diverse than the US as a whole, though. The 'oh the US is most diverse evar!' narrative is just American exceptionalism IMO.

Maths textbooks contain real mathematics and are aimed at mathematicians or mathematics students.

This is about a blockchain, and is presented using Haskell and over-the-top Haskell pseudo-category-theory.. it just doesn't compute for me.

Your argument rests on the fault assumption that in a 'wide range of media', the median publication is unbiased and things that are more left-wing than it are biased and things more right-wing than it are biased in the other direction.

That's just not based in reality. In reality, almost all mainstream media is incredibly biased towards the status quo.

>journalistsscum

Nice neutral name

>software engineers

Sorry to break it to you, but software development is not engineering.

'Semantical terms'? Semantics literally just means 'meaning'. If you don't want a discussion to involve discussing meaning, what do you want it to discuss? Your grammar? Your spelling? Your syntax?

>I think there's a spectrum. People who optimize file systems, for example: that's on the "engineering" side of the spectrum. It requires a scientific approach to the research. It requires a very deep understanding of complex systems, formal reasoning, and emergent behavior.

Is it engineering then? Or is it scientific? Because they're not the same thing.

I'm not super familiar with American politics. What do you mean by 'fiscally conservative'? You want the Government to lower taxes and lower benefits and such, is that right? Because that sort of 'the market is right, we don't need no government spending in our economy' view.. well.. that just is the same as being economically liberal.

But then again Americans seem to use 'liberal' to mean 'left-wing', is that right? Because that's pretty insane IMO, that's not really what it means anywhere else..

Coming from a maths background, it's not expository. It's pompous. Referring to the original article, btw.

I like the idea behind this article, but this isn't the way to do it. It hides the simplicity of the blockchain concept behind arcane syntax and overly complicated higher-order typing constructs.

    newtype BlockF a = Block (V.Vector a) deriving (Eq, Show, Foldable, Traversable, Functor, Monoid)
    type Block = BlockF Transaction

    type Blockchain = Cofree MerkleF Block

Does anyone really think this is how one should write software? I think that constructions like Cofree are interesting, but I don't think they're programming.