greenfield1

The thing you have in your pocket would have meant an enormous investment for equivalent compute power just decades ago and filled a whole basement with server racks.

> > Then they should have presented the case that way

> That's exactly what they did.

You have read the article, right? It starts with showing how it looks like in C++ and then goes on with the revelation "In Rust on the other hand ...". Literally. This strongly suggests that what they are getting at is a language feature that sets Rust apart from C++.

Why "natural, fair chance"? Of course they see what their competitors charge. That's one of the ingredients of a free market. The quicker they react, the quicker the information is dissipated in the free market.

> No the "not rational" part is that wages are not commensurate with cost of living increase because short term thinking yielding record profit margins is addictive.

Wages are where the two parties met. It's high enough so the seller of the good (employee) is ok with selling and it's low enough so the buyer of the good (employer) is ok with buying. As long as they do business with each other, they are apparently both deciding, rationally, that this is an acceptable deal. Better than the alternative.

> Workers are leaving because they can't afford it, not because they want to stratify their families and leave their homes.

Great that they are leaving! They should be leaving! Cause then, and only then, will businesses be driven closer to raising wages since the sweet spot in the above equilibrium moves upwards.

> For those thinking this is the market successfully working: has the market successfully worked in the Bay Area? How does SF look right now?

Well in the Bay Area, the market is highly distorted. Lots of NIMBY zoning rules preventing high density housing being built. People sitting on detached homes because they can't afford to move. This heavily distorts housing costs which then impacts salaries since all those tech workers need to live somewhere. Big tech and VC-funded not-as-big tech is floating in money, so can afford to push salaries/compensation higher and higher. It's the market, but it's not pretty and it's heavily distorted.

> Why would you cook or clean in Boston when you could do it literally anywhere else in MA without the commute?

Because that's where you have your social connections. Friends, family. That's where your home is, your parents lived there, your grandparents lived there, you grew up there. And you hold out for better times. And that's why you can be exploited like that.

That's the "not rational" part. The humans participating in the market are not "rational", for some odd definition of the word. But if you think through motivations, they are rational, if you put value in the reasons why people do this kind of job in this kind of situation.

I'm not saying there is no price fixing, but this could also be explained by the supermarket chains all using the same suppliers (which is most definitely the case since the dairy market is not as diversivied as one might think; it's dominated by a few big players) and those suppliers already doing cut-throat price competition with razor sharp margins, meaning that if the slightest cost increase happens then it impacts all of them and once one can't take it anymore and raises by a few decimal percentage points, everybody else will immediately do that to.

Ever been to a gas station? That raised the price multiple times a day just like the other gas stations a few hundred yards away? Same principle. Doesn't need price fixing as explanation. They are just all buying the same raw product.

I doubt it. The ultimate consequence of this endeavour is that a program that takes an int as input and produces an int as output would then have the type a:A->B(a). For example, a program P that for a given n produces the n-th prime number would express this in its type signature. Another program using that as a sub-function and doing p=P(n) could never reach the state where p is not the n-th prime number, the type system would be able to express that, and the type checker would need to be able to validate it. Etc. etc.

A type checker would amount to an automatic correctness proof, which in its full generality is impossible (by halting problem), but for the practically interesting classes could be done using a theorem prover / proof assistant and the occasional hint from the programmer. That would be great to have, but none of the examples you mention is anywhere close.

Exactly. In other words, the post could have just continued with C++ and shown a better way to do it in the same language.

... but then still somehow gets into this by showing a C++ example which is bad and then continuing that in Rust you could do this-and-that. Which completely obfuscates what's actually going on.

> I kind of want to plot the state space of a program to see all available states.

In the ideal program, only legal states are reachable. If you can use your type system to prevent to ever run into an illegal state, then you have won quite a lot. This is basically the holy grail of programming. Not sure we'll ever get there though.

As I don't know Rust, honest question here, just to help me understand..

The `pins.d13.into_input();` part just returns an object/reference/... of a type that only has input-specific methods, while using `.into_output()` would do the same with only output-specific methods, correct? That's nice, but why couldn't you do the same thing in C++?

With a dependent type you could do `pins.d13.into(INPUT)` and get the input-specific type, but that seems to not be something Rust could do?

I normally appreciate a good troll post, but I don't even understand what you are getting at here.. :/

Just because somebody mentioned the term "monad" doesn't mean that suddenly the code should be written in Haskell.

Python allows recursion too. Are you using recursion? Why not just write it in Haskell?

Python allows function calls too. Are you using function calls? Why not just write it in a functional language like Haskell?

A monad is just a general programming concept, like recursion and function calls. One particular language pioneering the concept's heavy use doesn't mean other languages can't adapt it. To the contrary, languages get influences from one another all the time. Especially Python.

Do you like list comprehensions? This super-pythonic thing? Goes back to functional languages in the 70s and the name was coined by Philip Wadler, one of the main Haskell gurus. If you like list comprehensions, this feels like trying to write Haskell code in Python. Why not just write it in Haskell?

Those "rent seekers" are the investors that provide you with capital to build something in the first place. They don't produce anything physical directly with their own hands, but if they don't provide the funds, then nobody else would either. The HN crowd of all people should understand this. Your salady doesn't come out of thin air. It comes from somebody believing in that the thing you are hopefully going to produce will hopefully eventually produce a profit that flows back to them. Without this believe, there would not be an investment in the first place and thus no salary for you.

Of course this leads to accumulation of wealth, which can be an issue for society if it goes to far. And I agree that that's happening and that we can't turn a blind eye to it. But the solution here is not to make villains out of investors, but to tax profits. Seems to be hard to get that into peoples heads though, especially in the U.S. where taxes are always viewed as something bad.

If I have the choice between a clean and simple to read codebase and a convoluted mess, I can tell you which one I choose. If the term "beauty" for that rubs you the wrong way then maybe we are just having a terminology disconnect.

Yes, it's not pythonic.

But the Maybe monad does have its beauty, which the in-built Optional doesn't really provide. If this package makes people more accepting, then let them.

If those "market prices" are not enough to pay for somebody's housing, then they are not truly "market prices". Nobody is going to accept employment at that rate since they can't live off it. So it's not actually the "market price". It only is if there are recent deals made at that price.

It's like saying "well I'm only asking for market prices" when offering somebody to sell some stock to for 100 USD even though they and everybody around them only want to pay 50 USD. That doesn't make 100 USD the "market price". Only if you've seen some recent trades for 100 USD, then it's the "market price".

Then say goodbye to all consumer protection regulations, safety standards, environmental rules, etc.

"Why not hire Americans?" in this context is like asking "Why not just vaccinate people?" in April 2020.