dllthomas

I'm pretty sure I heard it in an econ class, which would have been around y2k. From the way it was presented I had the sense that it was already well known.

There's a joke that Mystery Spot bumper stickers are a communicable disease.

> “Sliding Down the Razor Blade of Life” and many other very funny songs.

"Soon we'll be sliding down the razor blade of life" is a lyric from "Bright College Days", rather than a song of its own. I'm not sure that you intended to imply it was a song, but it was unclear.

> BTW, search for “Tom Lehrer” on YouTube Music - they have a lot of his stuff.

(And/)or check out his website, with all of his music (which he's placed in the public domain): https://tomlehrersongs.com/

That doesn't make it not "why" - but also that "why" doesn't make it justified.

I think diffs, snippets, and source control are crucial, but I think they only tie you to a textual representation if you are trying to use existing, text-oriented tools for them.

I grant that this makes the project significantly larger if you're going to remove that constraint.

TBH, I think "highly secure" might be overselling it. Yes, assuming you're generating random numbers well, there's actually zero chance your security will be breached because of an attack on your encryption algorithm. But there's not actually zero chance that your random number generation is flawed, and (very much more important) the cost is in making harder the pieces of your system that are probably more likely to fail in the first place. And of course you're still potentially vulnerable to traffic analysis and such even if all the rest goes right.

From the Wikipedia page linked above:

> Seven Republican senators joined all Democratic and independent senators in voting to convict Trump, the largest bipartisan vote for an impeachment conviction of a U.S. president or former U.S. president. After the vote on the acquittal, Mitch McConnell said, "There's no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day." but he voted against conviction due to his interpretation of the United States Constitution.

It's worth noting that the Supreme Court ruling here probably disagrees with McConnell's interpretation of the Constitution in a way that should have changed his vote.

The ruling does not seem to say that impeachment removes the immunity.

> a one time pad is and will remain highly secure

A one-time pad generated correctly and used correctly will remain highly secure, provided you have a highly secure means of sharing the key material. There's a lot rolled into those assumptions.

I have a webapp for tracking chores that need to be done periodically (but not on a fixed schedule). It just lists all chores sorted by how due they are (period / time since last completion) and surfaces a short history of who did what. I've rebuilt it a few times and played around with extra features, but the basics didn't take long.

I have a utility (dklocs) that'll turn git-formatted diffs into location-prefixed changed lines. It lets me do things like `git diff master | grep thatThing | vim - -c cbuffer!`. I built it for me (and probably use it multiple times a day) but threw it on github (along with another tool for intersecting a diff with code coverage that I don't think I've used since the motivating use case - where it did prove helpful).

I don't know if it quite counts as "creating software" but I've got some scripts and configuration to maintain separate context in named screen/tmux sessions, setting shell variables and aliases, adjusting the prompt, starting in some particular directory. Most useful there is segregating history by context, so ctrl-r when I'm coding doesn't step through system administration stuff.

I have a general project to decompose applications into utilities, and a pattern for dealing with the long-running bits that's been somewhat successful. I once wrapped up libpurple in a client that worked that way, and (in a separate project) it's how I get errors from `cargo watch` into vim.

Different emoluments clause: "he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

Is your grandmother a bike every time the receiving side of a pipe terminates before the sending side, or only when it happens to interrupt a printf?

It's a federated representative democracy with some issues, some of the components of which have some level of direct democracy.

It is also a republic. It could be a republic even if it was a pure direct democracy somehow without "issues" - in fact I struggle to see how a direct democracy without issues could be something other than a republic.

> it is unlikely there is an "imaginary-world" that we write programs for

I think academia is typically what's meant as an imaginary world, along with play that may be in reference to no world at all.

It's a little personal, but https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27092729

It has an effect. Whether it's a "side effect" depends on how we've defined that.

One way of viewing Haskell is that you are lazily constructing the single composite "effect on the world" called main.

    helloWorld :: IO ()

then is a value representing an effect, but it only actually happens when it becomes a part of main.

Threads complicate this but don't completely destroy the model.

IIUC (and I haven't RTFA but from my recollection of my conversations with Jonah around that same time frame) there is not really a game yet, it's more of a platform, with "trading" intended to be a possible feature of some games.

I recommend the vim adventures demo for the gaming alone. Haven't tried the rest of it, having balked at the price tag (knowing vim well enough that I think I'd be paying for the gaming alone).

> cases where I think it is necessary to annotate

Worth noting that that can be reactive, too. If an type checking error message is confusing or insufficiently localized, pinning down a few things around it can clarify.

As tome says, though, that can be a thing in Haskell too. There exist situations in Haskell where the compiler cannot figure out the types for you, but they're not most code.

It's cute, and gets at something real, but it's overstated. The first question is "are these things mutually intelligible", with an answer on a spectrum between "yes, perfectly, obviously" and "no, not at all, obviously". There is a huge gray area that stretches pretty far from the middle in which contingency, identity, community, and nation building projects (both military and literary) move the lines around quite a bit... but as we near either pole that factual question dominates. I think. I'd be interested to learn of counterexamples.

... and the bard Elron Hu, from a PKD story.

It seems pretty well known that Mandarin and Cantonese are different languages. It turns out there are a whole bunch.

Available autoformatting is great, but IIRC the Apple issue happened in an automatic merge. Autoformatting would still help it be noticed, when someone wondered why the formatter changed some bit of the code they hadn't touched, but a formatting check in with the automated tests would catch it faster.

> Coupling superficially similar code is definitely not a good thing to do.

I've taken to calling that activity (removing syntactic redundancy that is only coincidental) "Huffman coding".

IIUC what dragonwriter is saying is that by way of pardoning the murderer, Abbott is condoning the murder, making it in a sense a "private execution".

I think that logic is sufficiently sound, provided we know we are not being precise. I don't know enough about the case to say whether it actually applies here.

> Weird Al albums and he is very diligent about obtaining permissions from artists he is covering.

IIUC, Weird Al probably doesn't need permission for his parodies, legally speaking. He does get it anyway.

I think you missed my proviso.

If you can do X in the first place, I don't think there's any general rule that you can't condition X on someone not signing a contract.

I expect not... provided it's a thing you could do anyway (and it isn't extortion or something).

> forced to choose between "throws Exception" and a runtime exception,

Not that it fully defangs the issue, but there are two other options that come to mind.

1) suppress the exception (maybe with a log)

2) capture the fact (and maybe content) of the exception and expose it through the API in some other way

Probably neither of these is going to be appropriate for most cases, but seem worth surfacing because 1 is often chosen even when it's inappropriate and 2 is often overlooked as an option.

The lazy ones are convenient when I want to write a quick, small script to deal with a small number of large files.