groestl

> This is the root of a lot of the evil

It is not. Being extremely restrictive in the happy path, throwing all over the place, but have generic error handling code at the top level (e.g. HTTP entry point) makes for some pretty robust, stable, easy to read software. Albeit it typically has somewhat rough user experience.

The thing is, that's a pretty good place to start. From there on, you can handle exceptions one by one, surgically, and make things nicer.

Which (at least the way it was done in Go) is ignoring 20 years of experience in programming language design.

The question is _where_ the error needs to be handled. It's almost never directly at the call site. And then there's a few issues with checked exceptions and Java language things (RMI, closures, etc) which make checked exceptions cumbersome. An exception (checked or not) might be worse than sum types, but they're still a thousand times better then returning an error in-band.

> Keeping the map honest

I love me an honest map, it's absolutely load bearing for me.

> the results can be verified quickly and easily fixed

Citation needed. Many of my users don't even know what correct would be.

> nobody is going to try building a building only to check if it's structurally sound because that would be absurd.

Well, that otoh can be simulated quite easily.

:(

I have a box full of cables, that's what I have.

It's things like "under the attacker's feet" which completely throw me off. While trying to parse the text, my brain tries to imagine a surprised hacker.

Or typst, did that with my CV.

Parent speaks of capital owners, not capital managers.

Same here, and I thought it was about their visuals or something

> why would you ever design a program where a change in one place affects the other

If that would be possible, there would be no function signatures.

It's basically a myriad of unit tests without writing them down (in full).

Step -1: touch somebody and tell them to call 911.

Overhead per allocation, if you care about that, and reference circles.

It might not be the purpose, but it's the effect of laws.

I was under the impression it could do that, I think I build a snapshotting mechanism using this.

Do it once, make it your muscle memory - it's really hard for me to learn things by heart, but even I could do it :), and then you can forget about scp as well

Relinking?

It's also that it's really difficult to find anybody who could build rococo or neoVictorian buildings. And if you do, it's a lot more expensive. So the designs are not built, making it impossible for young people to gain experience building it.

I think it's not a matter of want. The goverment makes the rules, and the rules decide the emergent behavior of people, in companies and elsewhere. Whether their emergent behavior is good or bad, whatever that means, is a result of the way that your particular country selects the goverment. Mine is probably different than your's.

> I expect those people to behave ethically at any given time.

A company is set up and incentivised to maximize a profit function, and that in turn incentivises to promote people which are not impeded by ethical considerations. The hierarchy furthermore ensures that people which would otherwise act ethical, don't, for fear of losing their job. This structure behaves ethical as long as you put ethics in the profit function.

> we should also regulate them to ensure that they do and punish them meaningfully when they fail to

Fully agree, that's what I mean.

I think it's a fundamental difference in philosophy. Does the work exist, and you discover it? Or does it start existing as soon as you think about it? This person seems to subscribe to the latter world view.

IMHO one shouldn't expect a company to have any ethics to achieve a positive outcome for society. This needs to be baked into the rules (taxes, regulation, ...), so the ethical behavior becomes the rational behavior.

And there's certain constraints related to patient's safety which have an impact (i.e. less handovers, longer shifts)

In Austria as well, it's called "Turnus".

Next up: Airport Simulator! Enjoy security, customs, and the inevitable panic of missing your gate across more than 50 international airports around the world!

> the problem seems pretty clearly to be the impossible goals, which cause them to go crazier and crazier trying to complete them

And if you think about it, humans in coorporations face very similar situations and choose to bypass regulations and guidlines knowingly to fullfill (at least from their POV) impossible constraints (thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal here)

I hate them because I seem to be the only adult that sees the kid kicking out another kid's teeth, or hurting them elsewhere.