85 karma · joined February 13, 2018
The only charitable work that I consider genuine is the one that you does not know about. When you read about the work of a person 'x' of a foundation in papers/media, their work cease to be charity. It is just that the person is gaining something, in return, other than "feeling good" you mention. Superficially, or in other words, as shallow as public perception goes, it will appear as benevolent, and often times, it can be. But there is nothing that guarantees it, since the end result is not of benevolence, but something materialistic or sinister.
I think what ever they do, they do it to gather more wealth (Even if it is not apparent for the common man).
For an example, see how gates foundation tried to operate in India [1].
Why do you think that? Wouldn't it just give away the fact that he is a fraud? A smart conman will be able to run the con as long as possible with as many victims as possible...
>You can argue whether or not he is conning people but to me it seems that even if that were true it's not on purpose.
May be he is a natural then. I mean, he is as stupid as the people he ends up fooling. I really think that might be the case here. So in that case he is not smart. He is just dumb is a way that is just in tune with a lot of dumb people out there, who then buy into his "vision" and invest in him, because their understanding of the problems are as shallow as the perp who is proposing the solutions...
If by 'almost everything', you mean stuff that a non native English speaker could have understood anyway, then yes.
Some one should study you. Because I don't know how someone with a brain can be so stupid...Not considering the possiblity that you are paid for it, because everyone knows that there are no shills on hackenews...
Wow. This is a story in its own, because that statistics has been touted a million time by the tesla/elon apologists..
Utterly useless. And I don't think it is improving.
It is not really surprising when our whole system of existence has the stupidity and weakness of its inhabitants at its foundation. Point is, this will only get worse. Because any "progress" along the current lines asks the common man to be more stupid...
And who decides that?
MO of Elon Musk and the likes...
Not sure what you mean by elegance. I am not interested in elegance. I am interested in the code being readable, many weeks from now. I am interested in the guarantee that there are no hidden dependencies in the code am looking into. I am interested in the guarantee that the code/computation wouldn't end up being a mud ball comprising of a dozen mutable variables and their transient state, that can go arbitrarily wrong in a million ways involving half a dozen loops, that cannot be examined in isolation. Those are the things I use Haskell for.
Also, I think a reason for the kind of difficulty you describe might be that a lack of fluency in the vocabulary of FP, which is things like maps, folds, zips, filters etc. Known these functions is one thing. Being fluent in their use by combining them is different.
The frequently encountered "Haskell is not readable" mindset stems from the fact that there are so many people, still somewhat new to Haskell, who know these functions, but are not fluent in their use and common patterns (which is a fact that is oblivious to them), try to read code written by people who are fluent in the same...
About readability, Haskell in unreadable until you understand some basic precedence rules really well and until you internalize a hand full of things like function composition operator or the $ thing.
Then it becomes extremely readable.
Think of writing in shorthand [1]. For someone who does not know it, it looks quite cryptic. But once you internalize it, it becomes extremely concise and information dense.
So it is a case of a big initial investment and low long term/usage cost vs low initial investment and much higher usage cost.
So that, in a way answers the question raised by the post. Why hasn't Haskell taken over. It is because human beings are risk averse. ie we have preference for a sure outcome over a gamble with higher or equal expected value.
What exactly do you mean by this? Have you looked into something like let expression in Haskell? You can define as many symbols as you would like with it that you can use in the evaluation of the final expression...
Makes one wonder....
That is like saying people should not be driving cars since there is someone dying of a car accident every day. And that a person is to blame if they took their family out for a joy ride, and ends up in an accident killing them all.
That is also like expecting someone never to ride in a car, because someone dear to them were killed in an accident...
Do you think that is fabricating evidence is not possible? Is the possibility to fabricate evidence in favor of vaccines as outlandish as the claim of flat earthers?
I am also curios as to why when ever there is a discussion of flat earthers, there's is always someone who tries to throw anti-vaxxers or vaccine-skeptics into the same bunch.
Wait. What? How do you measure "relatively quickly"? As far as I know, we have been using it even after the problems were known.......
>The alternative to roundup is pesticides known to be much more toxic. Etc.
Any source for this claim that there are no, absolutely no safer alternatives? Also, is there any proof that a safer alternative is fundamentally impossible to make? Also, have we thought about using safer alternatives, and the hit in production that it might cause. Can we live with that?
Wait a min. I don't remember smokers dropping dead left and right in all those times when almost everyone smoked..
Another one is the effects on lead in automobile fuels. Again people were not dropping dead. Despite the issues about it that we have since discovered...
I think these kinds of apologetic behavior is vastly more dangerous than any hindrance to "progress" that might be caused by being more cautious...
>For individuals, obsessing about those things too much puts you in more danger to your health than those things could ever cause...
Not sure. How does producing vegetables myself, or making sure the vegitables I buy are free of residue, or limiting my exposure to air pollution put in me more danger than those things could ever cause...
If you think pesticide residue cannot do much damage, take a look at Endosulfan tragedy in India.
[1] http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Thiruvananthapuram/No-en...
The claim "vaccines does not cause autism" is often made to implicitly imply "All vaccines are very safe". I mean, this belief is harbored by every single one of the "Educated" "science-believers" out there. It is so damn ridiculous that people (who often consider themselves intelligent) can be so easily misguided.
I think if you are in high school, then you should be out of that zone..
> If you don't, you get eliminated but that's life right?
Exactly my point
To add to this. I think it is a fallacy that adults are better at "calculating" and is not as vulnerable. But I think this is just an image projected so that adults can be exploited in various ways while still being oblivious to their vulnerabilities...
For example, doctors think they are not influenced by ads and promotions. People here in HN/Reddit think they are above/not vulnerable to propaganda and is not actually as much vulnerable as the uneducated plebs they sympathise for being vulnerable and manipulated....