Yes, election coverage and endorsements and politically biased media did not exist before Citizens United. None of the dozens of democracies with political spending limits have political news coverage.
Hinduism is hardly non-proselytising. After all there's not a lot of Buddhists left in India. The Brahmin caste pretty intentionally and comprehensively reacted to and pushed out Buddhist practices once they became threatened by them.
I was thinking along parallel lines. If you have fuck-you money then sure: you just leave when asked to do something imoral. But if you are materially dependent on the job then you have battling imperatives that will stress you.
The first thought that popped into my head here was, "well I have no kids, so yeah if forced to choose between job and morality I'd just bounce and figure it out later". But if I DID have dependents it's harder.
I will say if the choice is between being imoral and _personally_ poor ... I'd like to think I'd rather just be poor.
edit. Then again this is also on us as people to anticipate and prepare for these dilemmas and not let ourselves be trapped in toxic situations. I suck at this and don't do any real forward planning like having a lot of savings or having a backup plan to getting out of a bad job. But that's on me.
It's not really random. Disease development in the Old World was a combo of long term urbanisation and animal husbandry. Urbanisation in the New World existed but wasn't as old and obviously there was way less animal husbandry. Also assuming the Bering straight crossing hypothesis humans probably left almost every freaking old world parasite and disease behind by the time they got into the americas. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of years of eveolution of diseases that evolved in Africa/Eurasia pretty much gets purged during that migration.
They were charging up hill in the mud. Noone really died from arrows, except maybe some of the horses. But a lot of their horses fell and then the knights ran back through their own infantry, though apparently that wasn't that big a deal in the battle.
The battlefield killing was done by light infantry wading in with daggers and hatchets apparently during a foot slog up the muddy hill which left the french heavy infantry exhausted. Another wave of killing afaik was when the captured prisoners were all executed since the english position seemed like it might be overrun by some follow up fighting.
(keep in mind the battle took hours and there was a lot more going on then just heavy horse riding up against arrows once or twice)
This is absurdly wrong. Most immigrants are poor people entering their new societies at the very bottom, not hipster digital nomads. Sometimes they are lower middle class in their own societies, but often they are pretty much at the bottom at home as well.
For whatever reason the west fails to successfully socialize an unacceptably large portion of the native born population.
It's easier to steal pentagon contract money than money issued for highways or train tracks therefore military contracting has a higher profit margin therefore that's what the lobbyists advocate for.
This sounds good but doesn't actually make sense, like most corporate money-grabs. If cards accumulate in value, everyone is essentially playing for free(or indeed being paid to collect cards since generally the market rose faster than inflation). Everyone can sell their collection and if the secondary market is healthy they can get back what they spent on it and more.
This is the fundamental scam of the game-piece idea: it kills the secondary market and basically means instead of having the option to recycle your old decks into new ones you have to always pay $50/deck or whatever Hasbro is selling decks for.
You're building CRUD apps. The conventions work and are extensible for teams of 1, 10, 100 and 1000s. You are not special and neither is your product. Companies making millions or billions of dollars have used this framework successfully.
This level of bike-shedding is what makes conventions necessary especially when dealing with the typical hyper-pedantic software developer. Just the thought of having to debate where to put every file in a project or having to invent a new folder structure for every app we build fills me with a bizarre mixture of boredom and rage.
As with everything in life the people that whine about the medicine the most are the ones that make it necessary.
It's so easy that there's like 5 or 6 of them that I know of in Romania alone and drivers will swap between 2-3 of them every day. So yeah, it's pretty trivial. While there's no reason to start one if you can't undercut Uber or whoever's already cutrate prices, that doesn't mean Uber has a lot of room to increase prices/profits.
I'll add that Ruby meta-programming has 2 pseudo-phases(at least in my mind): load time and 'true' run time. They're both technically run time, but smth like a has_many method in rails ActiveRecors runs once when the code is loaded, defines some other methods and doesn't run again while the process is running, normally.
You could also be defining methods pretty much whenever, for instance in response to user input, mutating the state of the process from that call onwards.
The former is much, much more common than the latter.
e. A blurring of the 2 is something like ActiveRecord defining field accessors dynamically once a DB connection is eatablished. You connect to the db and now your User model has email, first_name etc methods, unless you'd defined them already.
I'm guessing nothing quite like this could exist for Ecto(I vaguely know this isn't a super good comparison, Ecto is quite different from AR from what I remember).
That being said even that would still happen as part of a prod app's 'loading' phase so to speak rathet than during a request cycle.
I basically 100% agree with this and this is the editor env I wish I could live in.
I think the debate still exists because editors/langs don't work like this and you end up having to compromise one way or another. Obviously, if we could do really fancy code folding / inlining / condensing based on arbitrary user defined filters everyone would just write whatever they wanted.
I guess code review might be the only place where people would still complain, depending on how that looked.
It all depends on how often I'm interacting with an area of code. Is it library code I'm using all the time or some obscure private internal that I visit once a year at most?
If I'm only reading that code like ... 1 time ever, I'm never going to add to memory all the dozens of random 2-line private functions someone broke up their 100 line procedural function into. I'm going to be annoyed and mentally 'inline' it all into one linear block of code and then forget all about it.
Therefore I'll never remember or trust the private function names and will never know what the module does at a glance. I would be better off with it just inlined into one big procedure in the first place. Don't pollute my mental function cache.
The more some code gets touched and read and updated the more I can justify adding an internal vocabulary to it. Again, something like Ruby on Rails has a huge API surface area compared to plain Ruby, but that's fine, because after using it for a decade I know most of it and it was worth learning the vocabulary since I'm constantly using it.
It's like... commonly reused library or std lib or framework code is useful jargon used and reused by a community of people. But that pattern doesn't downscale. Applying it and creating my own jargon for an obscure module in a code base is a bit like someone inventing slang all on their own and whining when people ask them to explain what they mean in plain english. I don't want to read Finnegan's Wake for my job, just give me some boring realist prose suitable for a 5th grade reading level.
I just had the same sort of realization actually, trying to explain to myself why I dislike micro-functions: it pollutes the vocabulary that I need to know at all times with super low value information words that are only relevant in very particular contexts(and that I don't necessarily trust to not be mislabelled).
This is an unappreciated value of using code frameworks and doing things the 'framework' way. You might have a somewhat convoluted function using framework or std lib functions to do a task but anyone familiar with the tool can just read it top to bottom and have a genuinely deep understanding of what the code those and what edge cases might show up.
If you convert that into your own function vocabulary by wrapping the 'basic' code into extra methods... nobody can read the superficially more elegant function and know anything more than what the function names are telling them. It's like they're reading pseudo-code and can only guess at the implementation subtleties unless they annoyingly 'manually' inline the code by jumping to and reading through the custom function definitions.
I agreed with their assessment though for a totally different reason: the second function is only doing primitive operations and not invoking any other functions.
For the same reason I found that their refactoring actually made the first function worse. Now I have even more jumps that I need to make in order to 'inline' all the code so that I can deeply understand what the function is doing.
There seems to be an implicit assumption that you should just trust the names of the functions and not look at their implementation. This is hopelessly naive. In the real world, functions don't always have obvious names, their implementation can involve subtleties that 'leak' into usage etc.
I strongly dislike function extraction that's driven by anything except the need to reuse the code block. Function extraction for readability is about as useful as leaving a comment above the code block. Honestly I'm more likely to update the comment than the function name since changing the fn name means updating the callers as well.
edit. To add a bit of nuance: I think 'primitive' vocabulary is what's essential here. The standard lib of a language is primitives. The standard functions of a framework like Ruby on Rails are primitive.
I'm happy to see code written by calling functions/types/operations that I have seen before dozens or hundreds of times. What I don't like is when a feature in a codebase has created it's own deep stack of function calls composed out of functions that I know nothing about.
Create a rich base vocabulary that is as widely shared as possible and use that for your work. Avoid creating your own words as much as possible. This way I can glance at your code and not just see if (BLACK_BOX_1 or WHAT_DO_I_DO_AM_I_LYING) then DO_SOMETHING_BUT_MAYBE_I_ALSO_DO_SOMETHING_ELSE_WHO_KNOWS
Worker wages have been stagnant for a decade plus. Even the recent increases have been vastly outpaced by increases in prices AS EVIDENCED BY INCREASING PROFIT at companies that are increasing wages.
The problem is there is no price competition because most sectors of the economy are oligopolistic and have no interest in competing with each other one price at the moment.
If they charged like $2/year/user for 3d party API access they'd be profitable and no one would be that outraged.
Their expenses are still absurd given that, from my perspective they've literally done no improvement to the product in the last 5 years or more. Just maintain the API, have some staff to run the servers, pay a few admins to support the mods and feature freeze Reddit the site as much as possible.
It's way crazier that Reddit has 2k employees than that Twitter had 4k or whatever.
I know you're not saying this, but just to point out how absurd this price point is:
> Reddit generated $350 million in 2021, primarily from its advertising business
> Reddit has 52 million daily active users and approximately 430 million users who use it once a month
Are we really supposed to believe that Reddit is losing $500 * 400 million per year? Their total cost per user is probably something like $1/year. Twitch.tv which streams 1080p video prolly has costs of like $50/user/year. Insane pricing decision by Reddit.
You really cracked this case wide open, Sherlock.