lexicalscope

I guess that was my question - if they are making it use FFI as in Haskell, since it's Haskell-like not actual Haskell, or if it's something else that's specific to their JVM version.

This is pretty cool and interesting, but I'm curious how they can claim purity if they still permit evaluation of code written in Java or other JVM languages, even if the types have to be redeclared. In other words, I'm curious if they are permitting execution of "impure" functions outside of a monad or unsafe function if the type has been redeclared. May have to pull it down and have a look.

That makes sense - in this article it looked like they were using a modification to test the consistency - which should always be eventually consistent though. Maybe I'm misunderstanding though? Regardless, interesting.

It's amusing that they relied on a write followed by an immediate read to see if the updates were immediately consistent since S3 is only eventually consistent even if you're only using one region (with exception of certain utilities like the Import/Export tool) unless I'm missing something?

Meta-stupidity actually has another term for it as well - the Dunning-Kruger effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect - people that are inexperienced in a topic don't know what they don't know (as you put it, meta-stupidity) and so think they're smarter than they actually are - people that are more knowledgable know how vast the topic is, so realize their knowledge is less compared to overall knowledge, even though they're better than average.

Part of why it's good to be cautious around self-proclaimed experts.

Thanks for the feedback - all totally valid points - I'll make some corrections based on this and credit you in article. Sorry if it came off as though I was trying to sound smarter, I wasn't, I just misused the terms in question and didn't catch it in my copy editing.

As noted in the last paragraph, this is very much ignoring a lot of the core reasons that dependent type systems are actually valuable in favor of explaining how you can get something _of the same flavor_ of dependent ML using Swift (though admittedly, it is still not _really_ dependent) - I'll be doing another one on type systems that goes into more on this topic (also very relevant name, nice).

Edit: Changes made - thanks again :D

It's interesting to see different people have such different experiences. For me, my wife and I both have chronic health issues, in her case more serious ones, and so HDHP makes no sense for us. I can see how for people without those issues it can make a lot of sense if you use your insurance less for chronic treatment and more for preventative care and, as you said, a safety net. On the plus side, you can generally switch from HDHP to a low deductible plan at the next plan year start date should your situation change (as ours did).

Expertly put and exactly what I'm trying to say - thank you.

Fair enough - you're free to say whatever you want of course, and I'm not trying to tell you what to say or not to say, just be aware that what you say may have unintended consequences for others - my point was only to try to explain what those consequences might be in this case to you. Thanks for discussing.

That conclusion is specious and unfounded, and if you'd like I can cite some studies to the contrary if you'd like to discuss more offline. It isn't about what pleases me, it's about decreasing stigma around mental illness. It's not about oversensitivity it's about not increasing stigma. Those are not the same thing. It's actually a pretty bad argument tactic to assume anyone that disagrees with you is "oversensitive".

Also, I'm not saying you can't say what you're saying, I'm saying if you do you're contributing to the stigma and hurting people. If you don't care about that, then fine, say whatever you want - but my previous assumption was that you didn't understand, not that you just didn't care, but if you really don't care, then we have nothing more to discuss - you just don't give a crap if you hurt people in these situations, and that's fine.

Edit: To put it another way: we've tried the "tough love grow thicker skin" approach forever, and it hasn't worked - it has created the stigma - saying people just need more of it doesn't make sense.

Just because something is true does not make it useful or good to say, depending on how it is presented. If you said "most people with chest pain don't have heart trouble, they should just lay down and get the hell over it" that is probably not something useful and promotes people ignoring problems. If you, on the other hand, say something like "chest pain isn't always bad, and most chest pains won't be a heart attack, but you should always treat something that potentially serious seriously" that is not bad.

My concern is not that you are saying something not true, my concern is that what you're saying is dismissing what is potentially a serious concern, and that people with these problems should not have more obstacles insofar as other people saying they probably don't have problems.

There is a huge stigma around this already - throwing up more information telling people to ignore their problems is not helping anymore than telling people with chest pain to "man up" helps them. It took me a lot of time to get over the fact that everyone around me told me I didn't have a problem, and a lot of things in my life that were really bad could have been avoided if I had not had people saying exactly what you're saying.

I already commented, but I'll make one more point here: I don't disagree that there are a lot of steps you can take to improve your mental health: exercise, diet, etc definitely help. The problem though with saying most of the problems people have just require them to focus is that no one can measure other people's internal struggle/pain. We don't have _really_ objective tests on this yet, we have inventories where you check a box. Because of this, it honestly comes down to what someone can handle.

So this is the problem: I totally agree, if those things you said work for you great, but saying that most people don't have hard-core mental illness is really bad is really bad to say. In a world where it's already hard for people to come forward that have this problem saying something like this is going to push people into the dark more - telling them that causes thought patterns like: "well, most people don't have this, so I probably don't, it's really unlikely, and you know, my friends have down periods too, I bet they've cut themselves before, it's probably fine".

I know from experience.

PLEASE don't tell this to people, don't promote this line of thought, don't promote anything like this. If you want to communicate what I think you're trying to say, maybe this is a better way to put it:

"For me, I've found exercise and diet have helped me feel better, but if someone feels like things are out of control they should see a doctor and see where they should go."

Yeah - I have bipolar disorder, and this is why people with mental illness don't speak up, because we're afraid of this attitude. When you have to be on mood stabilizers and go through a lot of therapy to begin to not blame yourself for everything that your illness caused just because it's invisible it can be a real setback to tell people and have them say "Well you don't look sick..."

Same thing, ironically, happens to people with other chronic and non-visible illnesses: lupus, fibromyalgia, etc. "You don't look sick - get off your ass" - meanwhile their immune system is eating them from the inside out.

Anyways - to the original point - therapy can be very effective in treating anxiety and depression, but we should also not completely eliminate the possibility of SSRIs, MAOIs and related drugs for controlling depression. The reality is that depression is often multifaceted and the biological and psychological components of it are mixed in ways we don't entirely understand. I know a lot of people that have required an antidepressant to be able to _deal_ with therapy, and then were able to discontinue slowly after they went through therapy.

People with more serious mental illnesses (waves) can be helped through counseling, but often will be dependent on medication for the rest of their lives - but counseling for these people can still result in a net benefit for society, as often we can contribute quite a bit (and many of us are very high functioning!) if we are given the opportunity.

Anyways - to parent - thanks for illustrating everything that is wrong with our society's thinking about mental illness. I will literally link people to your comment when I have to explain in the future :). In all seriousness though, please get educated on this or study it more, I am hoping you're just ignorant on this topic and not malicious or mean.

Sort of - ARC's behavior will vary based on the architecture, and in some cases how the emitted code behaves will vary based on other parameters, but the code emitted will be consistent.

ARC is not really about when to call retain and release at the correct time though - it's more about managing object lifetimes and the guarantees related, it actually goes to a lot of trouble to avoid calling retain and release.

You are right though - this post focuses more on the fundamentals of how retain/release is implemented, and made efficient, but since this is only really used in ARC and not in manual reference counting, it's applicable to understanding ARC.

The second half of this will include details around how ARC uses these optimized retain implementations to actually perform the reference counting operations, how it determines things to remove vs keep, etc.

Patents can be challenged/revoked if they are not novel - in other words, if the practice, process, invention, etc already existed. Particularly if it is in widespread use it is often easier to get it revoked - hence conference papers, articles, posts, etc, about this practice can prove that CD is well known and get the patents taken care of.

Generally you are not required to search for prior art before you file a patent, you just have to promise you aren't aware of any. Some people intentionally avoid looking for prior art for this reason, as the patent office is overwhelmed and often staffed people not as much of experts as they should be, and you end up with people granting patents for obviously non-novel things.

I'm curious if the salaries include stocks and other compensation - my stocks are a large portion of my compensation package, and I work for a major company, not a startup. It makes me wonder if this might skew more in favor of west coast, where (I think?) those compensation schemes are more common - as where I'm at, those numbers all seem really low compared to what most people I know make.

No worries, and I do get that, and I'm not furious about it or anything like that. I will say though, it's frustrating when you suffer from this condition to have it characterized in this way, as an adjective, in the same way I imagine it's frustrating for people that actually have Asperger's to hear that thrown around as much as it is now.

That said, I can deal with my frustration, what actually worries me is that a lot of people that don't have bipolar disorder will call themselves bipolar, and make people that actually do have these problems think it's normal and that they don't need treatment or help. It's hard enough to reach out for treatment without someone telling you or implying that "oh yeah, most people have that who are smart, you just need to figure out how to be less angsty!" If that makes sense.

Tl;dr: Generalizing in this way hurts people that need help, I was once one of those people, so I just want to educate people to try to avoid doing this.

I'm not super fond of the assumption that someone is bipolar simply because of going in and out of frenetic periods of activity, that isn't really what bipolar disorder is. I have bipolar (II), so here's some things:

Since I only have bipolar II, I have never experienced "true" mania, but I can tell you that even hypo-mania is not what is described. Hypomania is more like having your throttle stuck on wide open and nothing you can do will make it stop. You just keep moving a mile a minute, even if you're exhausted. The thoughts just keep moving, faster and faster. You become impulsive. Have you ever bought 20 plants because you were sure it was a great idea then killed them when you became depressed? Bought $400 worth of sushi because, shit, it's a Tuesday? Those are some things that happen, out of the blue, and the thing that's maddening is that anything you do while you're manic is going to get fucked up as soon as you become depressed.

And the depression isn't just melancholia, at least usually, it's something far deeper, the _inability_ to do things. You can will yourself to have motivation to do something for hours, only to find yourself hardly able to do it. It isn't even really a sadness, or disillusionment, it's a fog, it feels like you can't even think straight.

As a programmer, it's a special hell, because it feels like my brain doesn't even work right. And while Lisp is great, it is no salve to that.

So no, this isn't the Bipolar Lisp Programmer, this is the Stereotypical Smart Bored Youth Programmer.