the point of using python? ML libraries! that's the 99% case of python-only case.
Other than that, I actually don't know... a lot of other languages now have interpreted-dev envs...
(btw, I'd rather use Kotlin than java --- it's like Java++)
48 karma · joined June 20, 2020
Other than that, I actually don't know... a lot of other languages now have interpreted-dev envs...
(btw, I'd rather use Kotlin than java --- it's like Java++)
seems you're confused between "limitation" and "feature"...
it's a limitation due to python's "no-braces/indentations-only" policy -- can't think of a way to mark where a lambda starts and ends clearly and cleanly with indentation-only...
1. no multiline lambda function? - breaks flow of writing fp code
2. default-arguments are 'shared' by default? - have to 'break' this sharing by assigning 'None'... - very unintuitive / I don't know any language that does this...
Anyway, not everything in python is 'pragmatic', and adding types is one of the first steps in going in the right direction.
pylance is much stricter, but it seems to have a lot of false-(+)s
from what I've used, the implementation varies wildly...
maybe it's time to allow optional brackets for marking where a function starts and ends? eg. a { ... } (or anything else -- even {| ... |} will do)
written in rust :D
but then again, maybe Alexey or his supporters didn't expect him to be arrested this fast
not a lawyer here, but isn't the litigation related to Android Java-clone, not 'server-side' java-usage?
though I expect apple to put usb-c port for ordinary people / people who don't like to buy magsafe (I ran over them with my chair several times, resulting in 5 replacements...)
Anyway, this blog-post seems to rally for a better eco-system work on Rust part. Being a new language without a rich parent (like Go's "google" or C#/Typescript's "MSFT"), the situation is somewhat understandable.
By your logic, it's OK for Bill Gates to buy all the press influence to completely silence the politically-other-side.
And my mention of net neutrality is to show how flawed your whole logic process is.
> What some people are arguing for is a sort of "opinion neutrality" for social media companies that forces them to treat all opinions equally without moderation.
hm I actually find this scary. Maybe you're from China, where deviant opinions/minorities must be snuffed down for "harmonious society"?
btw, maybe moderna can go after AIDS sometime later? I wonder how mRNA vaccines will work for AIDS patients...
Another concern: by your logic, net neutrality should be moot. Let ISPs choose and throttle online service by their whim.
Anyway,"freedom of speech" is actually intended to prevent any dictatorial entity from hiding the other side from the public.
imho, If the 'democrats' are actually 'democratic', they should have solved this with a much more elegant solution - eg. inviting people to a common, shared platform and refuting them there. Current FB/twitter/aws solutions are rather 'easy but dictatorial and may backfire', which is somewhat 'republican' in taste...
(* by backfire: pro-trumps can think: "The other side is trying to snuff us. What are they hiding? Are they more evil than imaginable? We should do something to guard USA from them"
imho, the root of the whole fiasco is actually the press preventing the broadcast of Trump after the election. (the 'snuffing') Better solution would be having open discussions to refute the pro-trump people.
Another thing is that by-standers will note about how 'undemocratic' the whole solution is, and whether they'll also be treated if they end up being the 'other' side of other issues
The pro-trumps will raise the question: "what are the other-side so afraid of, that they are trying to shut us off?" So instead of calming them down, it'll actually have the opposite effect - the feeling that the other side is much more evil than imaginable.
And the questions for bystanders will be "If the powers-that-be can snuff that side, what guarantees that I/we won't be snuffed?"
If you see the foundations of democracy, 'Freedom-of-speech' is actually a device to ensure no political party can have dictatorial powers over what the public can know. Moreover, democratic societies are actually more resilient due to these 'room-to-wiggle' - the other option will be much more violent 'revolution' experienced by dictator-states at their end.
Anyway, the other side is producing gibberish, then so be it. Just refute them properly inside a shared platform.
why would anyone go against 'all publicly traded corporations'? do you believe they are inherently evil, and should be taxed?
this law limits the depth of shell-company layers. it's more costly to add shells with this law.
they have family/relatives in mainland... have to be careful even in abroad
And yes, the same should go for Iran and Venezuela. But it's easy for CCP because they officially made the acronyms by themselves...
yes I can see that. but GP didn't actually say "5G is deadly", but "there might be something we don't know that can turn out to be harmful"
> we have access to an immense amount of knowledge we can use to help ourselves make decisions
the older-generations in the examples by GP could have been thinking the same thing. we all know better than older-gens, and future-gens will probably know better than us
Anyway, just don't try to attacking too soon -- might hinder discussion / research-attempts / etc
a big company-wide project? then static-checking with types is a must.
Guido beginning to work on types for python shows how types are necessary for big projects
though the current trend for languages seems to be converging, or everyone copying everyone else's?
pattern-matching? null-safety? exhaustive-enums/classes? lambdas?
if you squint a bit... the language-features are becoming more and more similar...
also, linux can't run apps like photoshop / adobe cc apps / etc
as for mac... I'm waiting for a M2 macbook pro 16 inch with RTX 3090 graphics for about $1500...
The other option is paying with tax-money...
btw, another view: why fix it to 20,000x? why not auction?