mitt_romney_12

The link to at the bottom update post should probably point here https://ochagavia.nl/blog/solving-the-jit-calculator-challen... instead of back to the article

But now every function that reads from stdin needs to pass around an offset of where to read from which is very unergonomical. It also isn't really pure since offset is now state that is changing whenever a function is called.

fn do_stuff(offset: int) -> (string, int) { x = read_guess(offset) y = read_name("what's your name: ", offset + len(x)) z = read_guess(offset+len(x)+len(y)) new_offset = offset+len(x)+len(y)+len(z) return ("name is: {y}, guess is: {x}", new_offset) }

What happens if you do:

x = read_guess(); y = io.read_int("what's your name: "); z = read_guess();

How would your system ensure x and z are the same?

This is an interesting approach but it has some issues with more more advanced effects. For example if you have a function that uses mutable state you would need to have the state both as an input and an output (for the original and the updated state) `update_mut: State -> String -> State` this isn't very economical as is probably worse than just `update_mut: String -> State ()`. If you commit to just having the parameters act as "markers" that don't actually relate to the implementation then you can get away with `update_mut: State -> String -> ()` but then you use one of the big benefits of effect systems which is that you can change the way effects work and have multiple different implementations.

You're approaching this from a PL design standpoint where the distinction is important, but from a user perspective it doesn't matter if it's just "syntax sugar" or if it's a super complicated to implement all that matters is whether the feature is available or not.

> the situation is, in the worst case, as good as when types are mandatory

The worst case is actually worse than when types are mandatory, since you can get an error in the wrong place. For example, if a function has the wrong type inferred then you get an error when you use it even though the actual location of the error is at the declaration site. Type inference is good but there should be some places (ex. function declarations) where annotations are required.

I'm assuming `timeout_return_value` would be a user provided value that serves as the default. But most effect systems also support a `return` effect that lets change the return type of a function [1]. So you could make it return `Just<result>` when it succeeds or `Nothing` when it hits the timeout.

[1] https://koka-lang.github.io/koka/doc/book.html#sec-return

If you replace the ternary with an if then it's easy to understand for anyone who knows what ... means (which imo every JS developer should know)

  const count = (amount: number) => {
    if (amount > 0) {
      return [...count(amount - 1), amount]
     } else {
      return []
     };
  }

With JSX you can do

  const todo = <DoMoreStuff args={...}><DoEvenMoreStuff args={...}/></DoMoreStuff>;
  <DoStuff args={...}>{todo}</DoStuff>

> With any financial innovation, there's often a cycle: initial excitement, over-extension, contraction, and then matured understanding

I'm a little more cynical, I think the cycle is: a new financial invention comes out, greed causes people to people to pump money into it, eventually the bubble pops or regulators step in. We've seen it time and time again: the dot com bubble, the subprime mortgage bubble, SPACs, and now/soon (IMO) with PE. My question is how many times this has to happen before we stop viewing it as an isolated with specific product and start to see it as a system issue with our financial system.

> Who is doing that today?

So many people. Look no further than the activists who are continuing to protest against Cop City in Atlanta despite the fact that the cops have already murdered one person [1] and arrested many more on trumped up charges [2].

[1] https://theintercept.com/2023/04/20/atlanta-cop-city-protest... [2] https://theintercept.com/2023/06/21/cop-city-georgia-attorne...

Under this interpretation nothing can ever be revolutionary. There is absolutely and ideology that is dominant in society at large and trying to say that the ideology that runs 95% of world powers and one that opposes it are equally "revolutionary" is counterfactual.

They hopefully won't but the threat of arrest, even if they won't be indicted, is definitely enough to have a dampening effect on people exercising their rights. At the same time I wouldn't be confident in the courts protecting your first amendment rights [1] especially given the current court.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States (Note: this case has been overturned, but it took 50 years)

I don't think that's what causes police killings unless you consider walking out of your friend's house with a cellphone in your hand making "10 of the worst decisions of your life in a row"[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Andre_Hill#Incident

You're right I meant to say hate crimes not hate speech. Although in the Utah case her actions where pretty clearly speech [1]

[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016431004/a-woman-is-facing-...

> in that the policies in question aren't controversial and are already enforced

These policies aren't enforced

> Change management practices, so officer abuses are punished

"Less than 10% of officers in most police forces get investigated for misconduct. Yet some officers are consistently under investigation. Nearly 2,500 have been investigated on 10 or more charges. Twenty faced 100 or more allegations yet kept their badge for years." [1]

> Change management practices, so officers with multiple incidents of abuse of power are not allowed to serve

"Officers like Wiley Willis, who was caught on video manhandling a handcuffed woman in an interview room until she lay injured in a pool of blood. He got his firing reversed because an expert didn’t record a polygraph ... Among the officers who benefited from it: a Shreveport officer accused of raping a woman at police headquarters; a Baton Rouge officer who shot at a fleeing motorist and was fired for dishonesty; a Eunice officer disciplined for choking and tackling a motorist; and a Hammond officer who took part in a beating that a policing expert hired by the city said was one of the “most abusive uses of force” he ever reviewed." [2] all of these cops got their jobs back

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/0... [2] https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/louisiana-shields-pol...

A gun isn't going to protect you from police violence, it's just going to give them a reason to become even more militarized and an excuse after they shoot you

> If you really believe that, I recommend going outside and stepping off 25 feet and then trying some smartphone recordings.

I recommend you trying that in a high stress situation involving an number of people in close proximity and lots of environmental noise. And then trying to see how that footage would be interpreted by a hostile lawyer in court

> I wouldn't be surprised if cops find it very uncomfortable to have bystanders that close when any kind of violent encounter is in progress

These are not violent encounters, the only violence that is going on is from the police. While I do care about the comfort of the police while arresting people, I am more concerned about not being assaulted or killed.

> The former. People have been over-charged for destroying the property of others, in the example given. But my point was comparative.

This is a inaccurate comparison. She didn't destroy any else's property

> But by god, there are a load of good ones, and some of them spend all day, dealing with people at their absolute worst, taking crap you or I wouldn't be able to handle for 5 minutes.

There are plenty of other professions that have tough jobs that I absolutely wouldn't want to do. But that doesn't mean I'm going to start letting garbage collectors get away with murder

The issue is also the distance, because it makes it harder to get accurate footage of what's going on

> Most people respect and want cops

89% of Americans think that changes need to made to make policing better and 50% of Americans think that major changes need to be made [1].

> People whining about cops being mean to them, and their general dispositions, tends to think that their police interaction is a super special customer service experience and that the system is faulty when it falls short of their expectations.

If those expectations are the cops not shooting or assaulting innocent people I think those are pretty reasonable expectation and if the system is falling short of them it is absolutely faulty.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/393119/americans-remain-steadfa...

This isn't a problem with hate crimes this is a problem with the level of immunity cops are given. If hate crimes had never been "made up" (whatever that means) they would have just found another way to make it illegal to piss off cops.

> Why wouldn't police officers be subject to the same kinds of protections from microagressions afforded to others?

These are special protections afforded only to police officers. Normal people are protected from hate speech about their race or gender but cops are protected from "hate speech" about their race, gender, or profession. It's not hate speech to say "Fuck Lawyers" but it is to say "Fuck the Police".

>25 feet isn't very far. In the other states mentioned I believe it's 10 feet, which is reasonable

The 25 ft buffer means that while people aren't prevented from recording an arrest, they are prevented from making a recording that would actually show anything. Like the article says "They create a visual and auditory buffer likely to produce reasonable doubt in the courtroom. Is the officer’s knee on the suspect’s shoulder, or on his windpipe? Is the suspect fighting, or flailing? From 25 feet, with officers blocking visibility, phone cameras can’t capture crucial details. From 25 feet, they can’t capture choking sounds or someone crying “I can’t breathe.”"

News about North Korea should be taken with a very large grain of slat given the medias history of reporting fake news about them [1][2][3][4] (note: I am definitely not pro-North Korea and this story is obviously very bad, but I think people should be a little more skeptical about North Korea news)

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jun/01/true-or-false-...

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-25621324

[3] https://www.dw.com/en/north-korea-fake-news-on-both-sides-is...

[4] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/fake-news-north-k...

The media has a propensity to basically report anything people say about North Korea, no matter how ridiculous [1]. For example back in 2014 a bunch of news sources reported that Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to a pack of dogs, the only source for the story was a random blog that turned out to be a Chinese satirist but the media ran with it because it fit the narrative of "the crazy hermit kingdom". In fact even golf story you cited here is completely invented [3]. There are a lot of problems with North Korea, but at the same time there is a lot of misinformation being willfully spread by the media.

[1]: https://www.dw.com/en/north-korea-fake-news-on-both-sides-is...

[2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-25621324

[3]: https://www.youngpioneertours.com/top-five-best-fake-north-k...

Other sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_North_Korea#...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jun/01/true-or-false-...

Why would it be linear? The reasons it's increasing is because people no longer feel as much pressure to hide their true identity. It's the same reason that the number of left handed people doubled from 1920 to 1960 [1], it's not a conspiracy it's just the way social norms work

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/07/americas-...

Puberty blockers are not permanent [1] they're taken until people start hormone therapy at which point they go through normal puberty

[1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dyspho...

To be fair given past experience I would expect victims of a breach to deny that it happened