foldr

Now you are just speculating on what would have happened in hypothetical scenarios. That's not evidence of anything.

Also, all that's achieved by extending polls for two hours across is enabling more people to vote. If that helps one or other candidate to win, it can only be because there are lots of people who want to vote for them.

The cubicle used to be the quintessential symbol of the oppressive and dreary nature of office work. Now you're romanticising it, which would have equally seemed absurd to people in the 90s laughing at Dilbert.

I mean, yeah? If you're talking about a particular country and a particular problematic national regulation, then name the country and regulation, so we can have a proper discussion about it. Otherwise this thread is just going to be generic moaning about how 'Europe' is over-regulated, which everyone has already heard a thousand times before.

That's not something that's required in 'Europe'. It would be a much better discussion if people could point to specific countries and regulations rather than talking as if the whole of Europe had a single regulatory regime for business.

I don't think it would be that shocking, if it's a conceptual confusion that's easy to make.

Ok, so you’re not talking about a specific UK political party.

You'll have to be more specific, sorry. Which political party, and what damage? I am not saying that everything is perfect in the UK. I'm just saying that the UK does not currently have an authoritarian leader making an executive power grab.

In my experience the trick is just to have a small caloric deficit. Then you just feel moderately hungry from time to time, and it's very bearable. The downside is that to consistently maintain a small deficit you have to track your calorie intake quite precisely, which is a pain.

I’d don’t disagree with any of that except lumping the current UK and US governments under the same “authoritarian” categorization. Trump is a classic authoritarian strong man pushing the limits of his constitutional authority. Nothing comparable is currently happening in the UK.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the UK and US have different problems when it comes to freedom of expression, and each country tends to notice the problems in the other one more readily than its own problems (especially because the US right likes to use the UK as a whipping boy).

From a UK point of view, what stands out currently is the cowed state of the US media. There is very little sense of a free press effectively holding the administration of the day to account. Extraordinary levels of corruption and incompetence are remarked on merely in passing.

Number of US media organisations that have reached a financial settlement with Donald Trump in recent years: 4 (totalling about $67 million).

Number of UK media organisations that have reached a financial settlement with a UK Prime Minister in recent years: 0†

† The last instances appear to have been Tony Blair in 2007 (who settled with the Daily Mail over photos of his family taken during a private holiday), and John Major in 1993 (who successfully sued the New Statesman over allegations that he'd had an affair).

France has had submarine-launched ICBMs with nuclear warheads since 1971.

That's not based on deep packet inspection; it's just low tech stuff like IP blocks. ISPs don't have the resources or expertise to DPI encrypted traffic (which is the majority of network traffic now).

"I'm smart but my colleagues are all useless idiots" is an insight now? That's pretty much everyone's complaint about their colleagues in all of human history.

We're now in 'stage 4':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYHwgQLvjqs

Supermarkets operate on razor thin margins. They rely on being smart and avoiding work to make a profit. I don't think they are going to be persuaded to do a bunch of extra manual work, and tolerate increased electricity bills, just on the off chance that there's a once-in-a-generation cyber attack.

I think, in classic HN style, you're massively underestimating the complexity of a domain that you have no experience with. There's a whole academic literature on optimizing this:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=supe...

The software running on fridges should, obviously, be secure (just like any other software should), but air gapping the fridges, and winding the technological clock back a couple of decades, isn't a realistic proposal.

Sounds fun. Perhaps you would like to volunteer for thermometer duty at your local supermarket.

If there were actually people wandering around supermarkets manually checking fridge temperatures in 2026, everyone on HN would be saying how easy it it ought to be be to avoid all this pointless manual labor using modern technology.

But does that mode offer anything you can't get just by giving Claude a vague problem statement and then telling it to ask you clarifying questions? I agree that this can be a productive way of working with an agent, but with the latest models and harnesses you can work this way naturally without any special configuration.

Possibly. It's complicated. It's not uncommon for Company A to produce a design based on Company B's proprietary R&D. Just because Samsung is making those displays for Apple doesn't mean that Apple didn't do major parts of the R&D. Nor does it mean that Samsung can make the same displays for Samsung, or for their other customers.

> url based imports that requires source code and rewrites when the host changes

This is not the case. It can be avoided quite easily with 'replace' directives and/or GOPROXY.

While this behavior can be counterintuitive, it's easy to understand once you have the right mental model of interface values. A nil interface is an empty interface. Once p is assigned to i, then i is no longer empty: it holds a nil pointer to an int. Whether the interface is empty or not is one question, answered by comparing it against nil. Whether the value the interface holds is a nil value is another question, answered by downcasting and then checking the resulting value.

I don't blame people for being confused by this the first time they encounter it. However, anyone who finds it persistently challenging to understand is not going to have much luck with the subtler language features of C++, Rust, Typescript, etc.

_Generic is very misunderstood. It's just defined so that there's a standards-compliant way of implementing the macros in tgmath.h (which previously required compiler-specific hacks). I don't think it was ever intended as a general-purpose feature of any great value.

Sorry, but you’re just losing track of the thread of discussion here. I was responding to someone who said:

> The controversies and scandals surrounding DEI were not about this, and thus it would appear this may be collateral damage.

You don’t see this as collateral damage, but the person I was responding to does.

I don't see how these probability claims are relevant. To avoid going off on a tangent, let's leave my immigration analogy out of this.

My basic point was that when people attack DEI in general, they create an environment that's more hostile to a conference like this one. They may say "oh, but obviously I wasn't talking about things like that". However, words have meaning. If you attack DEI as such then you attack all instances of it – not just the ones that happen to irk you.

This point has nothing to do with the likely views of the people attending the Grace Hopper Celebration.

>The controversies and scandals surrounding DEI were not about this

Oh but they were about this. This is the common trend of people thinking that "the good ones" are implicitly exempted from their general and sweeping attacks on $THING. C.f. the hardline anti-immigration voter who thinks that the guy who mows their lawn obviously won't be included in the crackdowns. If you attack the whole concept of DEI (as many did – not necessarily you), then you are in fact attacking events celebrating the achievements of women in fields where they're poorly represented.

I take your point about it being the default, but IMO std::variant is pretty much unusable for a parse tree. It could work for small unions that you visit once in a while, but traversing a nested tree of std::variant types is just a disaster. It somehow manages to be comprehensively worse than using manually tagged unions in all aspects except safety.

No? It would be pretty remarkable if the majority of all UK housing was built in a single decade. If you meant to say 'from before the 1970s' then that might be a more defensible claim. But old houses can be upgraded with double glazing, insulation, etc.

C++ still doesn't have a sane modern pattern for tagged unions. If you want to define a type to represent, say, a simple parse tree, then Rust makes that easy and obvious, whereas C++ offers you a hundred options, all of which suck.

Simplified, the point is that a lot of badly typed code that this bug lets through might be mostly harmless (or even fully semantically correct, in some instances). So you can't conclude that 'normal' code wouldn't trigger this bug just because no-one's noticed it until now. The bad code could could be happily executing and performing as expected.

In this case the issue is that the compiler just isn't properly type checking the implicit call to the drop method that's inserted at the end of the nested block. AFAIK, no correct code should depend on the absence of that check.

Not really. Here's what you claimed in your comment:

>A link [...] argues [...] that she did not participate in the moon landing project to the extent suggested here [i.e. in the article]

And what do we find in the article? A statement of exactly the facts we've tediously established above:

> Hamilton worked first on the software for the uncrewed Apollo missions and then was promoted into leading the team developing the on-board flight software for the crewed missions. By 1968 she was assistant director in charge of the Command and Service Module team, and more than 400 people were working on Apollo’s software.