tacitusarc

Makes me think of this:

> There is a pattern I keep seeing, especially in the Bay Area. So many fabulously wealthy people where it’s never enough. Never enough money.

Somehow people make 500k a year and end up broke and I know families making 60k with 3 kids and they are still saving and getting by.

https://irrationalanalysis.substack.com/p/its-just-money-its...

It seems likely this comment is a waste but… no, that clearly was not a personal attack, and going through life treating comments like those as personal attacks seems like a good way to be miserable.

> The system was created with the assumption that the president would act cautiously and judiciously

I do not believe this is true historically

Romance in the context of languages means they were derived from Latin, the language of Rome.

I don’t hate taxes per se but I hate that the government will take tax dollars earmarked for one purpose, which is how they got the tax approved by the voters in the first place, and move it to the general fund where they can spend it on their pet project.

What if you’re not able bodied?

Being off by a factor of greater than one thousand is pretty bad.

If you think there is a wealth inequality problem, I would encourage you to call out bad information, because it is the simplest way for opponents to discredit your position.

(Clearly this is what I am doing…)

> The 0.004% richest Americans hold the majority of US wealth

That is massively false. It’s closer to 5%. Still really bad IMO but 0.004% is a ludicrous thing to claim

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distr...

Almost certainly much sooner

Play that out. How does destroying the company halt the problem?

Personally I think intuionism provides a good answer to this.

Even if the executives care, they are pressured by the board.

Even if the board cares, they are pressured by the investors.

Even if the investors care, they are pressured by the pension fund administrators.

Even if the pension fund administrators care, that far removed, they care about their pensioners more.

Does this result in millions of micro-businesses? All on the verge on bankruptcy, all continuously going out of business as new ones are invested in by VCs hoping to make a quick buck

Broken window is different from the mowing lawns hypothetical

Perfectly fine to disagree with someone but the personal attack is unnecessary

Posts like this remind me of a story:

A young Thomas Carlyle was attending church with his mother. Upon returning home, after a lengthy sermon by the minister, Thomas turned to his mother and exclaimed, “If I were the minister, I would simply say: good people, you know what to do, now go and do it!”

His mother replied, “Aye Thomas, but would you tell them how?”

Are there any privacy focused, non profit alternatives?

There was a noticeable degradation after the introduction of “liquid glass”. Of course I’m still on my 13 mini so I don’t think they really care about how changes impact the performance and battery life of my phone.

I feel like a picture of rolling hills with spring wheat and a blue sky wouldn’t go amiss

Do proper maintenance so they don’t have engine issues, and carry insurance to compensate passengers in case they do?

I have broadly good feelings about Cloudflare but this warrants a response.

Not affiliated with them, just thought it looks interesting. Wish more smart device companies would do this sort of thing

This is wonderful. Does it support complex types of joinery?

I think part of the issue is that they didn’t explain what is gained by adding generics on methods. You’re right that a few examples here are useful.

Without generics:

‘’’

type Stream[T any] struct{ ... }

func (s Stream[T]) MapInt(f func(T) int) Stream[int] { ... }

func (s Stream[T]) MapString(f func(T) string) Stream[string] { ... }

‘’’

Then later you need to map floats:

‘’’

func (s Stream[T]) MapFloat64(f func(T) float64) Stream[float64] { ... }

‘’’

Then later someone outside the package wants to map a custom type. Too bad! They’ll need to make some custom wrapper that doesn’t follow the pattern.

With the genetics approach the semantics are defined once and usable in all scenarios. You don’t need to keep adding methods; instead the caller can provide the mapping function. Common mapping functions could be pre defined for convenience.

I have written Go for the past decade and completely, fundamentally disagree with this take. Go has always had a tendency towards limited exressivity, which created a strong dependence on interface{}, type assertions, and runtime bug’s that should have been compiler errors.

When I read these grumbling takes about how Go use to be so simple etc I imagine devs who would revel in all the features they were unable to implement because it would be too difficult in the language. Or devs who love typing and re-typing the same code over and over again, littering their code with switch cases and conditional logic while passing themselves on the back for avoiding “abstraction”.

Note that MoE is a sparsification mechanism and doesn’t actually have to do with expertise or what would commonly be considered areas of expertise.

A more concrete example may be useful to explain what I’m thinking. A company has you click to agree to their TOS. They link a doc, which is of course quite long. That doc has a footnote which links to another doc. You do not read the secondary doc, and it is the contents of that doc that allows the company to sell you data/prevent you from suing them/harvest your organs/abduct your family/whatever. My point is that “I did not read the document” should be a valid defense, such that if it is not I believe the law around this is wrong.

I suppose you can claim I am wrong to believe that, but it is accurate for me to state that I _do_ believe it, which is why I didn’t list me being wrong as one of the possibilities. Practically speaking, that is the first possibility I enumerated.

I should note that in my example, imagine neither doc is any more inscrutable than all the TOS we encounter in the wild, instead it is the construction (the fact it is a footnote link) that makes it easy to miss the additional doc.

I think that means one of three things: the court system is broken, you are wrong, or I failed to be clear and you misunderstood me. So, to be clear, if a company buries or obscures terms while making it seem like they have presented them, so you agree without reading the actual terms, you cannot defend yourself by explaining that situation?

But it is complicated, no? Even if you click you agree, if the you thought you were agreeing to one thing but actually agreed to another because they buried the lede, “I didn’t read it” is a reasonable defense.