nescoiquid

At a tangent to your (marvelous) response:

> But what about domestic terrorism, or important exceptions? No problem! Get a warrant.

I've heard about accounts of police investigations being aided with access to the mass surveillance data (through the FBI, I believe). It never goes to a FISA court, and the police use the information to develop a pretext for a warrant.

So even with a warrant, the power may still be unchecked. I believe it reasonable to conclude that conducting mass surveillance can't reliably done without abridging constitutional rights. I guess that leads us back to the unresolved conversation from early in this century about the trade-offs between liberty, privacy, and security.

The equal time doctrine was eliminated in 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

>> The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.

Each animal can be said to posses a survival strategy; ours resides not in talons, or rapid flight, or keen perception, or camouflage, but in cooperation. Even the hierarchical structure of our social organization aids in this.

It is a humble observation, even if it was difficult for me to appreciate for such a long time.

> We just use the circumlocution.

I think it is an ambiguous category. At least to native (American) English speakers and heathens like me. The only evidence I can offer of this is that in my language culture, I routinely hear "spicy hot", and often enough when one should simply say "spicy", anticipate the question "spicy hot"?

That qualifies as a circumlocution to me. BTW, I didn't think you Greeks learned Latin since all the classy Romans wanted to speak Greek ;-)

Interestingly, there is a lot of good advice on this in various writings on learning to read Latin fluently. Word order is very free due to the language's inflected nature, and of course, vocabulary requires constant attention.

The most highly regarded advice to breaking through into fluency is to break the habit of re-reading just as you get into trouble, or breaking off to look up a word. Instead, push through to the end of the sentence, holding as much of it in your head as possible, and being ready to re-interpret any chunks (phrases or clauses) that might admit of more than one interpretation. When you've reached the end of the sentence, consider what you think was meant by it. Only then, go back and re-read the sentence. In some cases, it may be necessary to read more than a single sentence together.

At any rate, I think a lot of people agree with your observation.

I don't think there's a chain of valid reasoning that can start with a few very exceptional people (that is to say these people are an exception, whether it be by talent, effort, or luck) and end with any conclusions about what is normative for the burned-out developer.

Given that the story said they rejected a deal in which the city would pay $462,123 plus interest for Comcast to come in, then I'd say the "common folk" would be paying for it in either case.

It's just in one case, the money is ceded to a private corporation.

For some reason I've found that vacpots are easier to clean up than a press-pot, but they really complement each other: some coffees go to the press-pot, some are better with the vacpot.

> their wildly varying build/metabuild processes.

Boost? I'm sure there's good reason for the -- sui generis -- build system. Always been too underwater to spend much time wondering about why that's a yak I'm shaving.

Or, new languages and language features just steal and adapt from Common Lisp (it's okay, that was just a joke, geeze). I never felt the availability of nearly any programming paradigm ever marred my experience in working in Lisp or made the language any less coherent.

If a fad is just a rediscovery (renewed interest in) some programming paradigm, they will all be familiar to you when they come back around. Hopefully your language incorporates it gracefully. I'm a little circumspect about how Java's lambdas turned out, but I'm not certain it could have actually been otherwise.

So, I don't think it is the inclusion of multiple programming paradigms in your language that is troubling, but rather how it incorporates them. One of the first pieces of advice (and very good advice) in Effective C++ is something to the effect of a) acknowledge that C++ is really a federation of smaller languages, and b) at the outset of a project, explicitly decide which parts the project will use, and which parts it won't.

> It's not something an uninformed person would reasonably expect

Nor is it something an informed person should tolerate.

> I refuse to whiteboard

Why is that? How you communicate is really very important. If the discussion warrants it, I offer the whiteboard to people if it helps them explain something or if I'm having trouble following. Is there a downside to this, or do you mean it as short-hand for some other interview practice?

> But you'd still expect features to be getting implemented at a higher rate

Yes, I'm inclined to agree, but I actually haven't ever seen a study which compares the same project implemented in different languages to establish in toto the variance in SLOC. It could be the case that in the main for the same project the differences between languages wash out, as different languages may have different advantages and disadvantages that are more likely to tell on a substantive project.

What you suggest seems reasonable, but I simply don't know it to actually be the case.

And studies show that the number of lines of code a developer puts out in a day is basically constant across all languages. This is usually cited as an argument for more expressive languages.

But if bug count is proportional to LOC and LOC per day are constant across all languages, then bug per day will also be constant across all languages.

You can write shit code in any language. I used to think Java made it harder to write shit code, but the project I'm on right now has made be reconsider this opinion.

I think this is a good question. My suspicion is that the policy resulted from legal, rather than market forces. If that's true, then the fact that we the readers, viewers, listeners are the product sold to the advertisers is irrelevant.

It is loadable via asdf. You can look at a very silly example here: https://github.com/grantham/clef-reading

Word.

There's Real World Haskell by Don Stewart (http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/index.html), though the order of exposition is different and your mileage may vary with the exercises.

I did find that "Programming in Haskell" by Graham Hutton was a very clear read and had good programming exercises.