DrDimension

The regulation applied to electric and telephone companies in the US...

How can people be this ignorant of recent history?

A private company must act as public infrastructure once it becomes a de facto monopoly.

Please give me one example of true information that would radicalize a person.

That study only proves that it moves extremists somewhere else...

If a man can't speak his truth, what alternative does he have to violence?

What will you do when your plan to censor the alt-right backfires and makes the violence worse? Attempt to start rounding them up? And when that makes it even worse?

You don't have a plan, just a knee jerk impulse to censor.

The truth is that information does not radicalize people - censorship does. That's why the channers are as radicalized as they are - they've been censored everywhere else. Censor their last remaining outlets and you will increase violence by orders of magnitude.

The truth is that information does not radicalize people - censorship does. That's why the channers are as radicalized as they are - they've been censored everywhere else. Censor their last remaining outlets and you will increase violence by orders of magnitude.

If ethno-nationalists are not allowed to make their political case with speech, what alternative would they have but violence? You obviously can't change their minds with censorship, only harden them.

If you want something that someone else has got, ask them for it. More often than not, they will give it to you.

If you find someone who is outpacing you, humble yourself for a damn minute and try asking them what they are doing that makes them so effective, then see if you can make it work for you.

If more engineers had this mindset, we'd all be better off.

>> Also, it looks you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological arguments (at least recently).

We're all pretty sick of your badgering everyone with differing opinions, dang.

If you want a safe space insulated from intellectual diversity, try NeoGaf.

Media matters is responsible for some of the fakest news the world has ever seen.

You know, Dang, this whole thread is a flame war topic. Why didn't you delete that? Oh, I know why, because it supports your side of the ideological narrative.

All people are asking is that you apply your own rules to your own selves. It should be obvious by now that these double standards do not make for community harmony.

My god, could you imagine such a thing taking place?! It would be the end of all things.

I'm going to have to pose an educated disagreement.

According to the classic C++ article, "What's in a class?" by Herb Sutter (http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill02.htm) -

The Interface Principle suggests -

For a class X, all functions, including free functions, that both (a) "mention" X, and (b) are "supplied with" X are logically part of X, because they form part of the interface of X.

So yes, f(x) is part of x's interface in C++, and has been considered to be so for a long time.

Dear Bjarne,

Please, please, please reconsider not enabling x.f(y) resolve to f(x, y).

You must explain to the detractors that they must reconsider allowing x.f(y) to resolve to f(x, y). This is not a selling out to OO, but in fact the opposite! Allowing x.f(y) to resolve as such enables us to finally get _away_ from OOP by using an alternative style called 'Data Abstraction Style'. I have written up an example of this style here - https://github.com/bryanedds/das

I have also written an entire C++ core library in said style here - https://github.com/bryanedds/ax

In PLT terms, data abstraction is the dual of OOP. In fact, I use it significantly in F# as a way to do pure functional programming where others just fall back into OOP - https://vimeo.com/128464151

Data Abstraction Style with resolution of free-standing functions to dot syntax gives us the best of both worlds - the increased modularity and extensibility of free-standing functions as well as the nice tooling and API explore-abily of the dot intellisense.

Additionally, there are precedence for this functional is less OOP-y language like D and Rust - http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/uniform-function-call-syntax/2327... https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/16293

Finally, this syntax is important just to allow extension methods without a more specialized syntax that won't likely appear anyways.

Please pass along this information to the people holding out on allowing x.f(y) resolve to f(x, y) - it is not selling out to OOP - it's an elegant path to finally move beyond it. People must be made to understand this before making their final decision!

Rather than using something inherently complex, entangling, and unscalable like MVC, use composable declarative languages, such as DSLs and monads... but always keep a trap door back to low-level control :)

This is how I built my UI system in my functional game engine - https://github.com/bryanedds/NuGameEngine

More detail - https://github.com/bryanedds/NuGameEngine/blob/master/Nu/Doc...

BTW, I must admit I misspoke on the last sentence - obviously the property of a software system working and doing what the user needs is more important than simplicity.

Too short a road from the obvious to the assumed...

I cannot help but think that the overwhelming desire to support immutability and functional constructs here, as well as in nearly all other modern languages, gives significant evidence that functional programming is finally winning out over OOP.

In the future, I hope that FP will be the default design choice, with objects being used where needed such as for components, plug-ins, and ad-hoc dictionary-passing-style tools.

After all, simplicity is the most important property of any software system - http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy

It's too bad you're unaware of the calculation problem and its consequences.

Also, let's reverse your argument -

"you make the free-market the source of all evil. blame a lack of regulation, blame the people working in corporations, regulate their pay as well. what happens? free-market service will suck. no one qualified wants to work there. a self fulfilling prophecy."

Blaming government incompetence on a lack of public trust in government is... fallacious to put it kindly.

Agree. It matters because nothing undermines scientific integrity and productivity like financial insecurity.