Some people get confused, but they are owned by different companies.
The founders know each other, has some relationship in business, and the company behind Hard Off owns shares of the company behind Book Off.
They admitted, apologized, and are in the process of revising the paper.
Mistakes always happen whether small or big. What is more important is to be transparent, learn from it, and make sure the same mistake doesn't happen again.
This was from my experience that I thought may work for others too.
Types may help in some sense, but is not enough and sometimes even add extra load especially on heterogenous data structures.
Before using any tools beside basic IDE features, I think there are fundamental things you can do to reduce cognitive load, such as focusing more on code design, convention, structures, naming, testing, documentation, which can be applied whatever language you use.
Reducing cognitive load is the key. Several approaches I usually take are:
1. Make strict rules for code convention, especially naming things, and stick to that.
2. Use intermediate variables (let binding) often
3. Turn meaningful code block to a function often
4. Write Clojure specs and turn them to docstrings
In addition to that, a real REPL programming really helps to do small tests and understand the code quickly, immutable data structures with data-oriented approach and locally scoped code blocks combined with structural editor are godsend as well.
Not reading but writing code, I have a similar feeling as playing the piano, especially
in highly interactive programming languages like Clojure or Common Lisp. Does anyone have similar experiences?
Although he had lived in the US for more than a decade and has no problem with the English language, he seem to have a kind of "western culture allergy" that is written in detail in the post below:
I know an example. The Aum Shinrikyo, which is known as one of the most violent cults in Japanese history, had many elites from top universities including doctors, lawyers, graduate students and so on.
About Hoshi, I have seen him in a conference video before, and have an impression that he isn't good at English, which can make a bit difficult in discussion.
>The claim was that people don't report crime, and you claim to see people reporting suspicions.
> Even if it weren't just an anecdote, it isn't even addressing the point accurately.
I have addressed the suspicion thing in my second reply to derefr.
It is not just suspicion, but also a crime that is reported.
> Neither of you have actually provided anything beyond generalizations and anecdotes. Any conclusion based on what's been presented so far is incredibly premature.
I understand your point. Since I know quite well of Japanese people, I don't think it is premature. To clearly show evidences that everyone can understand is a different thing and it is also difficult in some context.
To deny the claim "So nobody bothers to even report such crimes", I have to find just one case and since I know a case I consider it false.
To prove all my claims that I have witnessed, we probably have to go to court and I consider it nonsense since it isn't realistic.
To prove a customary of Japanese people, it is very difficult and I currently have no clear evidence that I can show easily, but any Japanese people can oppose to my claims if it seem wrong.
To back up my claim using other sources, for example, I can tell you a famous date-drug rape case of Shiori Ito in Japan, which the victim reported to the police, accepted, investigated, but not prosecuted.
> Oh, sure, people are very willing to report their suspicion of a crime happening to someone else.
I can say the same thing when you see a stranger entering your property that such case alone can be a crime in the Japanese law. I have seen Japanese people reporting such crimes.
> But what do you think is, say, the date-rape report rate for Japan vs. any other country? Something that's already a source of personal shame is hard enough to report; knowing that no investigation will even be attempted in response means there's no reason to try to overcome that shame.
Even in such specific type of crimes that is very difficult to investigate, some people report to the police. It is up to the police department to accept the reports and further investigate.
> Look at what reports ever get any detectives assigned to them, and the statistics will tell a far different story.
Your claim was that nobody bothers to report, but I oppose to the claim because I have seen people reporting, and thus I still conclude your claim is false.
As a person who knows Japan quite well, this is not true. Even a very light case like seeing a stranger near a house, Japanese people will often call the police or go to a koban and request for help. In such case, a police officer will come to your house, listen to your claim, fill in papers, and will do some patrolling everyday for several days.
It is not that nobody bothers to report crimes. Japanese people bothers to report crimes, but it is up to the police department that if they should accept the damage report and do some further investigation. Of course there are priorities and because of the lack of resources some crimes won't be taken seriously when it should have.
In an Japanese article the guy says that he was kicked out of Sotobanari island after becoming famous for showing up in a Japanese TV show; many tourists came to the island, the relatives of the owner of the property wanted to do some farming in the property, and some people were concerned that some other street people will do the same thing like him.
For these reasons he was asked to leave the island. If you want to read in more detail below is the article in Japanese.
>Not. Your precondition was not that. It was more like "If the company is obeying the japanese government" or the "japanese law" then is fine for Japanese to hunt this whales
Again false. The precondition of the comment you said incorrect was never like that. Next time you post any comments, please read out loud and be more careful :(
I stated a precondition, "if the company is obeying the laws and it's just an emotional thing". So if that precondition is not true as you might consider, then your claim 'So the "not your business" claim is incorrect here' is incorrect.