kloop

> What's memory?

Room full of buckets. And each of those has 8 light switches in it.

And on modern computers, the janitor keeps the buckets he's used most recently next to his desk.

I guess I am technically, but only for myself

> Then why bother?

Because software is fun, and I get to work with cool things. There is a joy in programming in and of itself.

I guess your question doesn't make sense to me. Just because it will eventually be broken, does that automatically mean there's no value in software? I don't think that's true, it just probably means you should have an analog backup process if possible, especially for critical things like government services.

> If you are not providing a internet service then why is your SSH open to the internet?

So that I can ssh into it from various places and do stuff on my home server from elsewhere

Could still be done by re-incorporating companies in countries without kyc laws. And if fines for being breached get high enough, that's probably what would happen.

That would probably be bad for tax receipts though, so it's more realistic that there's an upper bound on infosec related fines

> If 'undesirables' are part of your local area, then they'll be on the public transport. The clue is in the name.

Their examples of undesirables are about behaviors, not sectors of society.

Since we're using Japan as an example, Japan does have very strict social rules on public behavior that probably help in this area.

> The government would likely have a very big uphill battle to out-market the automobile industry given a large segment of the population distrusts or dislikes the government.

It seems weird that the response to "a democratic government, which derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, has lost the confidence of large swaths of the electorate" is to give that institution more direct social control.

That seems like the opposite of what a sane system would do.

If you forward declare things there are. The compiler really just cares about the shape and the symbol it has to call.

That's an interesting point. I don't think either the book or the blog post say there's literally zero value in the system.

But if the main value is taking care of the kids during the day, we can change the system A LOT. And probably get more value for a lot less money. Say, by hiring local grandparents to take care of 2-5 kids each for a while

> I think the song is very funny and charming, but I do think this is a rare case where Lehrer is just wrong, the "borrowing" style is a much better and clearer way to explain subtraction.

How much of that is that you're familiar with this method (the same way Tom was familiar with the old method)?

> The article misses the point of learning, confusing it with "education."

They really don't. The book in question is specifically titled "A case against education", and it's not an anti-learning book. It's a case against the education system specifically, because he argues that the system isn't really about learning (and the things it is about cause large negative externalities).

The lisp world has a rather different idea of extensibility via library than you are used to.

For example, the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS, object oriented programming in lisp) originated as a library. Lisp's main looping mechanism (loop) also originated as a macro (although long before CL standardization).

You just don't do js levels of dependencies when they're adding big features like that. You don't need 100,000 programming paradigms in your code base.

As long as we only see one birth, that's probably fine. It just implies a stable time loop.

If they're smoking and boozing that hard, doesn't it seem kind of likely that they'll be dead in 5 years?

They said no one was speaking to this moment.

The people you're talking about were speaking to their time. It's not automatically clear that proposals for an industrializing economy are applicable to a post-industrial highly financialized economy

> You wouldn't put aside, say, 3% of your taxes to fund research into medicine?

Not if it goes through the traditional grant process. I've fundamentally soured on that.

Maybe an open bounty system? First one to develop an effective drug for X gets their costs paid for + 1 billion or something (number pulled straight out of my ass, feel free to adjust)

> If your country's only advantage is to steal tax money

Your assumption seems to be that countries have a right to someone's productivity even after they emigrate elsewhere.

Care to actually defend this point?