Before we age, we lack experience, context, produce less useful work per hour worked, and get paid less. Legality aside, isn't it rational to discriminate against younger people?
I would very much love to see the "simple CRDT" implementation described above, seems like it would be a great learning tool and/or foundation on which to build something more complicated!
Indeed. I wonder though whether they could possibly know the answer to that question to a degree of confidence that would make them comfortable to pursue me endlessly to make their sale, and sell and trade my information and their inferences about me with their advertising partners in order for them to do the same, just with 1000 different variants of the above example.
And I wonder whether they're incentivized to care. In either cases above, my money is still green and smells like money, and makes the same number go up in their quarterly sales goal dashboard.
My point, and I gather the point of the Banksy quote, is that any one instance has a negligible effect on me, but that in aggregate I'm stuck staring down the barrel of a machine that has infinite stamina and resources that's attempting to wear me down, and is likely succeeding in ways I can't detect, nor have the power to detect if I wanted to.
If being exposed to this aggregate process all day makes me less patient with my family at night, to what degree is it worth it? If it makes me less willing to treat someone else with kindness, is it still justified if it's only a _little_ less willing?
No single advertiser is literally laughing at me while doing the backstroke across their vault full of money, but none of them needs to have such overtly malicious intent for the aggregate effect of the entire system on me to be just as corrosive.
Does it drain me entirely every day? No. Does it drain me some days or in particular instances? Certainly! Are some people far less resilient than I, and are perhaps drained to a larger degree? It stands to reason so.
To be clear I'm not saying any one advertiser is directly attempting to demean any particular person into buying their particular product, because clearly this isn't a winning strategy. It's the dose that makes the poison, however.
If one person walks up to me on the street and says "I've got some shirts that would make you look really slim" I would shrug it off as a weird happening. When the second person say "I used to look large, but this brand really made the pounds seem less obvious", I think it's been an odd day. When this continues to happen over the course of the month, perhaps I begin to think I'm looking a bit large around the middle.
Taken in isolation, no one instance is going to break me. Taken together, over a lifetime? That could change my own perception of myself in ways I can't even begin to estimate.
I don't think it requires any particular paranoia or self-loathing, just the day-in, day-out grind against the receiver's psyche.
We take it for granted that living with an emotionally-abusive person deeply affects someone's sense of self-perception, but for some reason when advertisers use the same sort of tactics, but at a slightly lower level spread across a greater amount of time, we're supposed to accept it as appropriate?
We all have a finite store of, let's call it "self confidence"; why should we accept as status quo that all comers have a right to drain some of it every day in order to line their own pocketbooks?
In 12 years in Austin I have encountered zero scorpions indoors, and maybe a single-digit number outdoors. This despite essentially constantly walking barefoot in both. In my entire life in Texas I've been stung by a scorpion exactly one time.
I used to have this problem, and found it to be caused by a combination of two factors:
1) Growing up in a house with low water pressure. If the machine doesn't have much pressure to work with, it seems to do a bad job more or less regardless of what you try to do
2) Given you have sufficient water pressure, using cheap detergent. After switching to a "top of the line" dishwasher detergent packet, a dishwasher went from "borderline useless" to "more clean than I can get them by hand".
Number 2 was by _far_ the most impactful thing I've done; I can essentially now scrape dishes of large food chunks then put them straight in the dishwasher, and have a >= 98% confidence they'll come out completely clean.
Indeed it can, but I believe the point is that it's not round-tripable, meaning you can't parse the resulting serialized JSON back into its original form, the one that contained the Date objects.
If you could do so, JSON.stringify/parse would be a convenient way to do a deep clone.
I'm a former Arch user who's been using NixOS as my daily-driver at home for about a year now, and I've really enjoyed it, even above Arch (which I'm also a big fan of).
The biggest gain over Arch for me is the safety net it gives you in making configuration changes. Once I've got the machine working, that state can be booted to for as long as I care to keep its pointer around. This means things like kernel upgrades are no longer the anxiety-inducing problem they used to be on Arch for me; if an upgrade fails, I can quickly reboot to the previous state without having to do anything special.
As a result of this, I no longer need to put off kernel upgrades when I'm trying to get something time-sensitive done! To be fair, I was running the ZFS-enabled Arch kernel, which was the cause of most of my problems. However, using the ZFS kernel on NixOS has been anything _but_ problematic; it just works, and keeps working!
Nix/NixOS also makes setting up a new machine just the way I like it a joy. If I move to another machine, need to build a new one, or need to re-image the current one for any reason, my configuration (stored in source control) follows me around without me having to remember all the one-off tweaks I did to make, say, hibernation work correctly.
I haven't yet mastered building packages since I don't find myself needing to compile things from source all that often, but I can certainly feel the pain of learning how to do so; it still feels like quite a mountain to climb before I'd really know what I was doing.
I was a one-time Xmonad user, but switched to i3 recently. The enormous complexity of configuring Xmonad is what got me to switch, honestly. Perhaps if I A) needed enormous configurability or B) knew Haskell well I would have stuck around, but i3's config is much simpler to manage. i3 is also slightly prettier, but that's orthagonal :)
The thing that made me start wearing a helmet was the realization that, even if I'm the safest possible bicyclist there's ever been, there's no way to stop the environment from acting against you!
I managed to go over my handlebars while riding down a quiet side street (with no hands, like a badass :/ ), when a gust of wind blew me sideways and caused me to overcorrect and crash.
The Lord protected me on that one and gave me a chance to be a bit more proactive :)
As far as functional languages go, it's a nice compromise between the absolute purity of something like Haskell and the day-to-day practicalities necessitated by building practical, scalable things quickly (core.async, nice Java integration, runs on the JVM).
As far as looking like a parenthesis layer cake, that's part of the Lisp "tradition", really. One can look at is as the price you pay for true homoiconicity and powerful macros.
Mount it near the top of the door, out of reach of the small escape artist.
I had exactly the same problem and this solved it.